I think if you were really serious about preventing intruders (rather than discouraging opportunism) you need alarms and cameras and someone with a big stick.
How many training seconds are required to be able to manage an average of 30 seconds? Or do you mean destructive? If yes, is it loud?
Maybe the American locks are different (doubt it) but as a casual lockpicker I can say it's not as trivial as you make it sound. Or if you're talking about destructive methods rather than picking, that's still better than an electronic lock where you potentially never know if someone managed to bypass it. It might also be done or at least prepared remotely (no need to spend at least a few minutes single pin picking the door, or making noise destroying it).
"Lock bumping takes only an instant to open the lock. The lock is not visibly damaged, although the force of the bump can leave an indentation on the front of the cylinder."
> The Protec's design enables it to resist a variety of common attacks, particularly lockpicking. There are no confirmed non-destructive attacks against Protec cylinders in the public domain.[2]
See the whole Abloy family at [3].
[1] http://www.lockwiki.com/index.php/Abloy_Classic
[2] http://www.lockwiki.com/index.php/Abloy_Protec
[3] https://securitysnobs.com/item_images/4323f39aa0570924212c3c...
Large apartment buildings of the size this article is about sometimes use better locks. I had a Medeco on one apartment I rented many years ago, but that's the best I've ever seen. Right now, I have a Schlage lock that can be picked in seconds. It's not hard. Americans do not buy elaborate locks. $10 is out of our price range, it seems.
But even something like a dimple lock will frustrate someone expecting a regular lock.
Your deadbolt should also require multiple turns of the key to disengage completely.
An afternoon of practice starting with some shitty master locks and then moving up to some doorknobs you bought at a home improvement store.
Many countries (like US and UK) use pin-tumbler locks that are easy to pick. In some other countries it's common to have much more secure locks such as Abloy Protec series. It takes lots of skill and time to pick these.
In this recent (3 months ago) Reddit post, the guy picks a Protec 2 lock, but he's been practicing with this particular lock and its combination a lot, and he's been a hobbyist for 10 years. In the comments he says than in field conditions with another lock, it might take him an hour.
https://www.reddit.com/r/lockpicking/comments/amjumx/abloy_p...
I do wonder how well that works (for y'know, not being fire hazard and not being terribly insulated, being able to whither bad weather conditions, ..).
I have not visited their new place yet so I can't comment on what it is like to live there. But houses in Europe just look more sturdy.
That is one thing that makes me think investing in housing in the US is a bad choice. The houses just don't seem like they are build to last. (Again I am judging it just by the looks and I could be completely wrong about it!)
If this is average for the construction in the US, then there is a lot of room for improvement. You can absolutely build lasting wooden houses with adequate fire protection and good insulation. But it seems that there's not a lot of incentive to do so on that continent.
The Great Lakes region of the US (like Minnesota, where I live), and some parts of the Northeast, are places that experience considerably more ... 'Scandinavian' extremes of cold, and the houses are built to handle it.
Also, the structure itself is a depreciating asset. It's the land that gains value over time. This is true in Europe as well.
But fair enough, it's probably less bad than I thought :)
Also, building a whole house out of brick takes a lot of labor. It's simpler (and cheaper) to frame the house with wood and then clad it with siding.
It's surely cheaper and easier to use wood. my understanding was indeed that the wood was more exposed "to the elements".
Of my concerns, the only one that remains and seems to be validated by other people is the insulation. So it'd be wasteful for energy. Perhaps you'll spend more heating up the place than you save by not using bricks.
Either way, thank you for clarifying some things :)
And Notre Dame is made out of hewn stone blocks, not brick, which is a big difference. Brick isn't stone; it's just baked clay, which isn't as good. There are actual houses out there that are made out of hewn stone, and that's another thing entirely. My relatives live in a manor in Tuscany where the oldest part of the house is stone from the 14th century.
Very little built since the 60s is likely to reach that age. If humanity is serious about sustainability we have to learn to build to last once again.
Actually, the law only ever matters where protection is “inadequate”, as per your definition. If we all lived in bunkers and had a personal protection detail, we wouldn’t need any of those laws. But we’d waste endless amounts of money, and ultimately failing the second any aggressor is able to outspent us even just temporary, or surprising us.
The typical night latch (Yale lock) is super easy to pick, but it wouldn't be easy to get UK insurance without a 5 or 7 lever Chubb lock, or one of the newer security locks. So pretty much everywhere has one - and quite often both. Newer doors tend to have multiple bolts in three places, operated by the single security key.
Just a night latch might be used for internal doors, or a garden shed.
Unlike many jurisdictions all through Europe, the US has guns equaling in quantity to that of Somalia or Uruguay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
Given the amount of guns (100+ per 100 people), and that some have a stockpile while others have none, you're taking your life in your hands if you want to break in and burglarize.
Edit: -1? Did I say something factually incorrect? Given many states have castle laws, you can legally blow someone away if you feel threatened. This absolutely does come up in home security... Whether people want to discuss it or not.
The capacity for defending one's self and property is not distributed evenly across the US. Some states are bristling with armaments like Switzerland. Others are neutered like the UK. In certain states break-ins not targeting a specific individual for a specific reason are basically nonexistent. In other states criminals have little to fear from the property owner so property crime is more common.
Yeah, and you know who has probably one of these guns? The people breaking into your home. And they usually have the first mover advantage, aren't surprised, and so on and so on .. I'd rather have a good lock on my home than risk this as a home owner.
Here's what happened to four dudes who relied on 4:1 numerical superiority and first mover advantage.[0] Home field advantage is still a thing. When one party is in their own home they can't reasonably retreat any further so they tend to put up a pretty good fight. The invading party has better options for disengaging so they usually flee.
[0]https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Three-dead-...
Sort of. The capacity for self defense is not evenly distributed and many (I would guess most) HNers live in states and have social circles where gun ownership is not nearly as common, not considered acceptable or is at the very least not talked about. In these states a home invader is much less likely to eat hot lead. People don't realize that in other states there is a near 100% chance of encountering someone who is armed if you break into an occupied home.
>you can legally blow someone away if you feel threatened
"Feel threatened" is the low bar cops have to meet. Us proles actually have to be threatened.
I can go in and buy long guns without a permit or any check. Or if I want to carry a pistol, I need a permit. I can get a lifelong permit. Signs that say "cant carry guns in premises" can be taken as kind requests. They have no legal backing other than schools and govt buildings. I can legally carry in a state forest. I can also legally carry in most midwest and west states. (Pretty much the rule is, not on the coasts with lots of people, and not in Illinois.)
It's common to see someone packing heat in a very non-concealed manner, gunslinger style on their hip. Also, getting hold of things like high velocity rounds or armor piercing is relatively easy, given we have high power rifles that can fire through armor.... and there's no license requirement.
I don't like being around so damned many guns. But that's Indiana in a nutshell.
>I can go in and buy long guns without a permit or any check.
Well, except the NICS check of course...
>Or if I want to carry a pistol, I need a permit.
Smells like infringement to me... but requiring an easy to get permit to carry concealed in public is a pretty reasonable compromise as far as firearm laws go.
>They have no legal backing other than schools and govt buildings.
They can still ask you to leave and if you don't your trespassing and the can ask the cops to ask you to leave.
>Also, getting hold of things like high velocity rounds...
The ballistic performance you need for effective hunting at the kinds of ranges people hunt at in states not covered in forest basically necessitates the high speeds rifle rounds travel at.
>...or armor piercing is relatively easy, given we have high power rifles that can fire through armor.... and there's no license requirement.
Granddad's lever action .30-30 will make a mockery out of the soft vests that anyone who isn't expecting to get in a full blown firefight will be wearing. Those vests aren't designed to stop rifle rounds anyway. Rifles are basically a rounding error when it comes to crime/homicide/death stats so that's why cops, body guards, etc. don't wear vests with rifle plates, the risk is so small it's not worth the inconvenience of wearing a vest with plates.
We may be unarmed, but I assume at least some UK burglars are put off by an occupied home as it may contain a German Shepherd or large irate guy with a bat handy. The locks are for when I'm out - when I'm in and awake, just turning the handle will get you in the back door!
Where I live currently (Southern California) ranch houses (i.e. ground-floor only) are so common that anyone with a rock can get into your house pretty easily, so a more secure lock might not be worth it.
They tried to break into my place twice. No dice, though.
When it comes to smart locks, however, I wouldn't be that confident. For example : https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/f-secure-hotel-lock-...