Slashdot Mirror
Is Cheap Video Surveillance Possible?
timholman writes "After a series of burglaries and auto break-ins in my neighborhood, I'm thinking about adding some video security cameras to my home. To me, the object isn't just deterrence — if someone tries to break into my house or my car (parked on the street in front of my house), I'd like to provide a high-quality image of the perpetrator to the police. Inexpensive video surveillance systems, with their atrocious image quality, are nearly useless. The problem is being able to get good image quality at an affordable price. After some research, I've decided that using network cameras to FTP images to a central server over a HomePlug network is the best solution. However, good megapixel network cameras (e.g. Stardot or Axis cameras) can easily cost more than $1,000 each. Has any of you dealt with a similar situation? Is there any way to get reasonable quality (preferably open source) daytime and nighttime video surveillance equipment for home use without paying an arm and a leg? Is it better to go with a couple of expensive cameras, or a multitude of inexpensive cameras? Is paying two to three thousand dollars simply unavoidable if I want to monitor my front and back yards?"
Visit StormFront and Nmania for ideas on how to protect yourself from savage animals.
In other words, we should just let anyone come into our house and do whatever they want. That kid is a less likely to break into your house and steal your TV if he sees a gun. And even if comes anyway, the worst he will probably do is make off with your TV.
Uh, no. In other words, it is preferable to catch the kid when he attempts to sell the TV, or after he has fled the scene, or at some other point, or, just let him have the freaking TV and get him the next time. That's the thing with criminals. They don't steal just once; and even if you miss them 9 times out of 10, you'll get the bastard on the 10th attempt.
And society is better off if we don't kill kids for stealing TVs.
That kid is more likely to break into your home and do worse than stealing your TV if he knows you don't have a gun.
Actually, depending on the kid, if he knows you have a gun in your home, he's MORE LIKELY to break into your home IF YOU HAVE A GUN, to steal your gun. He'll just wait until you're not home.
Hope you don't mind watching your wife and daughters be raped.
What kind of pansy are you? You, your wife, and your daughters are home, and ONE KID with a gun, in the close quarters of your home, is going to keep you at bay with a gun AND rape your wife and daughters at the same time?
Look, if a guy with a gun can screw your wife AND fight you at the same time, having a gun in your house is not going to do you any good, because you apparently have no arms.
Even if your ridiculous rhetorical question had any truth to it, wouldn't it also considerably increase the criminal's chances of getting killed?
Sure. But it's still not worth it. You know what your real problem here is?
The situation you're trying to use a gun to protect yourself from almost NEVER HAPPENS. Criminals don't buy guns and then invade homes and attempt to use guns against the home owners. Hell, they don't NOT buy guns and invade homes and attempt to do anything with homeowners.
When criminals invade homes, they try REALLY REALLY HARD to invade homes that are either EMPTY, or so freaking large that they can move around the home and never encounter the home owner.
A criminal breaking into your home has one of two purposes: to do you harm or to make off with your stuff. Any criminal wanting to make off with your stuff probably values his life a lot more than your stuff. If you both have guns, he's probably going to run before starting a firefight - and if he doesn't at least you have equal odds.
Ah, stupidity continued. A criminal who is going to make off with your stuff is GOING TO WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE NOT HOME, rendering your firearm useless - at least to you. If you do have a gun in your house, you've just let the criminal make more money by stealing that too.
A criminal breaking into your home to do you harm won't care if you have a gun or not. The gun helps you even the odds assuming he has a gun and if he doesn't, he's completely screwed.
How is fantasy land treating you?
Did guns become magic when I wasn't looking? A criminal is screwed if you have a gun and he doesn't if and only if:
- You're awake when the criminal gets to you.
- You're awake and aware enough to understand that the criminal is, indeed, a criminal, and understand this in enough time to get your gun, point it at the criminal, and shoot the criminal, all before he gets within arms reach of you, in which case you're engaged in a 50-50 struggle over the gun. (Actually, since the criminal is probably fully awake, less than 50-50 odds for you.)
Guns are a range weapon, and your house is NOT A RANGE ENVIRONMENT! You'd be better off with a knife in many cases.
Of course. Who would say differently? Why would you imperil those around you - even the mugger - over a few bucks?
Ok, so, few bucks no, television yes?
In real life people prey on
paintball
We have a couple of Eurofags who have been brainwashed into relying on the state to protect them. Citizens own guns, slaves are not permitted to own guns by their owners. The subject here is cameras so stop with all your anti-gun BS or I WILL turn up the opposing rhetoric to a high flame.
> I've never really understood this point of view. If some kid breaks into your home to steal your
> TV - are you really going to shoot them, potentially kill them? You would potentially kill
> someone to keep your $1000 TV?
Bingo! Gun them down. Kill them. Decimate their ranks.
Here's why: Someone breaking into my home is obviously not a productive member of society. This critter has broken into homes before and will do it again. They most likely do this every night. The cost of the decision to keep this critter alive is the:
(1) cost of everything (s)he stole,
(2) cost of repair the damage done by breaking in,
(3) cost of security systems,
(4) cost of the police,
(5) cost of the emotional damage to victims,
(6) cost of overhead in insurance,
(7) cost of morons screaming that we must give up our irreplaceable rights to get some irrational sense of security from government "protection."
Take each of these costs and multiply it by a burglary a night, and you will see why I will gladly kill anyone who breaks into my home.
So we have a hardened criminal who has made a living taking what he wants for a few years, and then he finds your 18 year old sister (who just moved away to go to college) sitting on the floor in her panties trembling. She tells him to take whatever he wants...
I know you are not willing to fight back, and would never tell your sister to fight back. That's your call. (It makes you less than human if you will not fight, but it's still your call.)
> And lets say someone violent breaks in, with a gun. Don't I considerably increase my chances
> of getting killed if I have a gun myself?
No. Your chances of being injured or killed (or raped) when you use any weapon to fight back go down by a factor of 10x.
Even if I do get killed stopping the critter who broke in, I'll save your sister from being victimized. We humans call that an excellent trade. (You sub-humans whimper in fear.)
Andy Out!