Cheap way to get storage such as shed or other shelter for equipment and tools as well as tools?

FreeBear

Wera & Bahco are good quality. Draper & Silverline are OK budget as long as they are not abused.

Hand tools from the 1940s should be fairly decent if they have lasted this long. But it is highly unlikely that there will be many metric spanners from that era.

Bookworm105

GervisLooper said:

Bookworm105 said:

investigate auction houses, I regularly buy from one that acts as the "clearance outlet" for major retailers. so sells customer returns and unopened end of line items.

new and used tools plus various types of (plastic) storage "sheds" are listed at least every 1 - 2 weeks 

bear in mind however that a used tool is in an auction for a reason, it may be worn out!

Depends on the tool. I don't think things like spanners wear out, not easily anyway.

Power tools sure I could see them having a shorter shelf life.

OBVIOUSLY 

Section62

GervisLooper said:

....

I know it is said per capita theft is higher in the country than in cities but I find that hard to believe.

Rural crime is an issue because remoteness means less chance of being seen stealing whatever you are stealing, and if anyone does turn up they are likely to be alone and/or outnumbered so are less likely to intervene - especially as assistance (and particularly medical aid) is likely to be a long time away. (the low population and high-value equipment found in the countryside are also factors)

Your "'manual' elbow grease" tools will probably have low cash value, but might be useful at the next location the uninvited visitors are heading to. Locking some things up tends to be counterproductive as thieves end up causing more expense to the victim in damage to buildings/locks than the stolen goods were worth.

GervisLooper

Section62 said:

GervisLooper said:

....

I know it is said per capita theft is higher in the country than in cities but I find that hard to believe.

Rural crime is an issue because remoteness means less chance of being seen stealing whatever you are stealing, and if anyone does turn up they are likely to be alone and/or outnumbered so are less likely to intervene - especially as assistance (and particularly medical aid) is likely to be a long time away. (the low population and high-value equipment found in the countryside are also factors)

Your "'manual' elbow grease" tools will probably have low cash value, but might be useful at the next location the uninvited visitors are heading to. Locking some things up tends to be counterproductive as thieves end up causing more expense to the victim in damage to buildings/locks than the stolen goods were worth.

Yes not disagreeing with all those factors but rather the claim that there is more crime per capita in rural areas. Don't see how that can be given some of the stuff I have seen in cities. I would see crime almost on a weekly basis there yet only once in a blue moon hear about it in rural place where my mum is.

BarelySentientAI

GervisLooper said:

Section62 said:

GervisLooper said:

....

I know it is said per capita theft is higher in the country than in cities but I find that hard to believe.

Rural crime is an issue because remoteness means less chance of being seen stealing whatever you are stealing, and if anyone does turn up they are likely to be alone and/or outnumbered so are less likely to intervene - especially as assistance (and particularly medical aid) is likely to be a long time away. (the low population and high-value equipment found in the countryside are also factors)

Your "'manual' elbow grease" tools will probably have low cash value, but might be useful at the next location the uninvited visitors are heading to. Locking some things up tends to be counterproductive as thieves end up causing more expense to the victim in damage to buildings/locks than the stolen goods were worth.

Yes not disagreeing with all those factors but rather the claim that there is more crime per capita in rural areas. Don't see how that can be given some of the stuff I have seen in cities. I would see crime almost on a weekly basis there yet only once in a blue moon hear about it in rural place where my mum is.

You are aware what per capita means?

One crime in a blue moon may well be more per capita when you compare the population of a small village to the population of a city centre.

GervisLooper

BarelySentientAI said:

You are aware what per capita means?

One crime in a blue moon may well be more per capita when you compare the population of a small village to the population of a city centre.

Not really tbh, I know the term but have not really been able to visualize its meaning.

BarelySentientAI

GervisLooper said:

BarelySentientAI said:

You are aware what per capita means?

One crime in a blue moon may well be more per capita when you compare the population of a small village to the population of a city centre.

Not really tbh, I know the term but have not really been able to visualize its meaning.

Per capita is "per person".

So, Leeds (as I have those stats nearby) has about 1.5 bicycle thefts per 1000 population.  That means there's something like 1200 bicycle thefts, because there's something like 800,000 people.

If your village of 500 people had one bicycle theft, that would be a crime rate of 2 thefts per 1000 population.

33% "more bicycle thefts per capita" in the village than Leeds, even though it's one theft compared to 1200.

GervisLooper

BarelySentientAI said:

GervisLooper said:

BarelySentientAI said:

You are aware what per capita means?

One crime in a blue moon may well be more per capita when you compare the population of a small village to the population of a city centre.

Not really tbh, I know the term but have not really been able to visualize its meaning.

Per capita is "per person".

So, Leeds (as I have those stats nearby) has about 1.5 bicycle thefts per 1000 population.  That means there's something like 1200 bicycle thefts, because there's something like 800,000 people.

If your village of 500 people had one bicycle theft, that would be a crime rate of 2 thefts per 1000 population.

33% "more bicycle thefts per capita" in the village than Leeds, even though it's one theft compared to 1200.

Yes I pretty much knew that and did know it means 'per head'.

However, does that make rural theft more likely?? even though the per capita is higher?

I mean I understand what per capita means however I still don't understand how it can be higher in rural areas because there is a higher concentration of thieves in cities than the country.

How come I saw and heard about crime all the time in the city but almost never in the country?

If per capita it is higher then why does being in the country feel much safer than being in the inner city slums. Is it just an illusion and the picturesque bucolic spots are the real dens of iniquity?

BarelySentientAI

GervisLooper said:

BarelySentientAI said:

GervisLooper said:

BarelySentientAI said:

You are aware what per capita means?

One crime in a blue moon may well be more per capita when you compare the population of a small village to the population of a city centre.

Not really tbh, I know the term but have not really been able to visualize its meaning.

Per capita is "per person".

So, Leeds (as I have those stats nearby) has about 1.5 bicycle thefts per 1000 population.  That means there's something like 1200 bicycle thefts, because there's something like 800,000 people.

If your village of 500 people had one bicycle theft, that would be a crime rate of 2 thefts per 1000 population.

33% "more bicycle thefts per capita" in the village than Leeds, even though it's one theft compared to 1200.

Yes I pretty much knew that and did know it means 'per head'.

However, does that make rural theft more likely?? even though the per capita is higher?

I mean I understand what per capita means however I still don't understand how it can be higher in rural areas because there is a higher concentration of thieves in cities than the country.

How come I saw and heard about crime all the time in the city but almost never in the country?

If per capita it is higher then why does being in the country feel much safer than being in the inner city slums. Is it just an illusion and the picturesque bucolic spots are the real dens of iniquity?

There might be a higher number of thefts in cities, but that does not mean there is a higher concentration.  In fact, the per capita data says that there is not a higher concentration at all.

The country feels safer because the absolute number is lower.  If you see or hear about ten crimes in a city (or even a hundred crimes), it feels like a lot, even though it is a much lower rate and per capita statistic than seeing one crime in the countryside (which you would probably ignore as a one-off).

Use my example - you would have to see 1600 bike thefts in Leeds for it to be statistically 'worse' than seeing 1 bike theft in the theoretical village.  I think you would feel it being worse much earlier than 1600.

GervisLooper

BarelySentientAI said:

The country feels safer because the absolute number is lower.  If you see or hear about ten crimes in a city (or even a hundred crimes), it feels like a lot, even though it is a much lower rate and per capita statistic than seeing one crime in the countryside (which you would probably ignore as a one-off).

Use my example - you would have to see 1600 bike thefts in Leeds for it to be statistically 'worse' than seeing 1 bike theft in the theoretical village.  I think you would feel it being worse much earlier than 1600.

Still not clear, is the country safer or not?