(other than hardware)

what are the best Tech security (brands) for home (surveillance) these days? which brands are to be avoided?

We had ADT in our previous two houses. Lousy service, lousy installations for both.

I was a remodeling contractor for many years and had numerous customers who also had similar experiences with ADT.

I vote against ADT.

self installed products from stores please, like IP cams

not package services a salesman pitches

Upgrade-my apologies, I misread your post.

I will be interested in anything you learn here because I would like to install a camera at our front door. WE’ve had a few weird “incidents” lately and I think it’s time to get a camera.

Old school here:

One well trained house dog. A reliable pistol and perhaps a shotgun for the fear factor.

Remington 870 wingmaster

This is the best alarm system I have ever owned.
Attachments:

Keeping guns in the home for any reason only increases the chances of your ultimately dying from a gunshot wound. Guns make you LESS safe, not MORE safe. Any sort of actual home security system would be better than "hardware."

https://www.consumerreports.org/home-security/diy-home-security-system-cost/

A German Shepherd trained to attack niggers, a shotgun and a 357 magnum.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keeping guns in the home for any reason only
> increases the chances of your ultimately dying
> from a gunshot wound. Guns make you LESS safe,
> not MORE safe. Any sort of actual home security
> system would be better than "hardware."
>
> https://www.consumerreports.org/home-security/diy-
> home-security-system-cost/


Where exactly do you live?

Just get IP cams off Amazon. All those services like ADT are complete rip offs.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Keeping guns in the home for any reason only
> increases the chances of your ultimately dying
> from a gunshot wound. Guns make you LESS safe,
> not MORE safe. Any sort of actual home security
> system would be better than "hardware."
>
> https://www.consumerreports.org/home-security/diy-
> home-security-system-cost/


Oh good, the libtard fag has chimed in.

You need both. Nest has decent video quality and there are some other brands that are solid. Get something you can install and maintain or have a nerd do it. Then you need a nog ventilator on the back end to finish the deal. Others here can post their favorite caliber and nog eliminator of choice.

Get both. The guns save your family from rape and pillaging at the hands of savage niggers and the camera footage saves you from a libtard jury or judge that hates the country and all those that defend themselves against democratic voters.

Your odds of your killing yourself go up once a gun is in the home. The odds of someone else doing that job for you go up once a gun is in the home. The odds of your dying as the result of some "Darwin Award"-type accident go up once a gun is in the home. The odds that you will ever use a gun at all in a break-in sort of scenario are next to zero, and the odds that you would be able to do that successfully are much, much smaller than that. This is why the FBI advises homeowners in an invasion-type situation to run away if at all possible, and if not possible for some reason, to hide in as secure a spot as you can find. The last thing you want to do is go all Clint Eastwood loco. That's just another way to get yourself killed. Better that the TV gets boosted. Insurance will bring back a nice TV after all.

Jonah Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Where exactly do you live?

Nearby. Call me for the full info at 1-800-FUCKYOU.

We had (past tense for a reason) ADT and had so many false alarms that we ripped it out. Not only annoying for the homeowner but the cops aren't exactly thrilled to run repeat calls for false alarms either. The interior motion sensors were the cause. I'd steer clear of those if you decide to go with ADT.

Avoiding areas full of Latin and black savages and always shooting first emptying the magazine. No bananas here to steal Leroy or Juan!

Jonah Ryan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Happy homeowner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Keeping guns in the home for any reason only
> > increases the chances of your ultimately dying
> > from a gunshot wound. Guns make you LESS safe,
> > not MORE safe. Any sort of actual home
> security
> > system would be better than "hardware."
> >
> >
> https://www.consumerreports.org/home-security/diy-
>
> > home-security-system-cost/
>
>
> Where exactly do you live?

if you tell a nigger/spic you have a gun and where you live, he'll rob your house, shoot you with your own gun

not un-coincidentally, whenever a spic buys a gun in fairfax county "illegal haven", they report it stolen, which fairfax county allows for it's loyal democrat corrupt voter base

Internet of things Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just get IP cams off Amazon. All those services
> like ADT are complete rip offs.

everyone knows that. the question was which brands are not crap - and offer features like "not letting my neighbor open the cam with his android"

Bananas? They’ll come to steal your guns.

i would bet ADT uses the cheapest chinese cams they can get their hands on and tells customer they are commercial quality

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jonah Ryan Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Where exactly do you live?
>
> Nearby. Call me for the full info at
> 1-800-FUCKYOU.

ok. when democrat you stops filming me in the hotel bathroom and crossing the street and stops dipping into FCPS funds paying china god knows what for school security systems (1/2 of which get funneled out to a hostile nation by fx co gov) ...

ha! your just a poser. you fucking democrats live on filming others

fooling: no one

BTW: ip cams are not always installed outdoors. just so you know: your a fool

it's painfully obvious no one here has ever even shopped for one

Wake up call Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bananas? They’ll come to steal your guns.

+1 and will make it look like a "suicide"

it's a confirmed fact that's exactly what they do

lukeu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wake up call Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Bananas? They’ll come to steal your guns.
>
> +1 and will make it look like a "suicide"
>
> it's a confirmed fact that's exactly what they do


Having bananas, watermelon, or fried chicken will attract dark neighbors like a light does to a moth. And anything resembling the colors of central America, will bring Juan Valdez and beakers to your house. And if you invite slant eyes, always count your silverware pieces.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your odds of your killing yourself go up once a
> gun is in the home.


PLEASE buy a gun.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your odds of your killing yourself go up once a gun is in the home.

No, it's that the odds of using a GUN to kill yourself
are higher if you actually HAVE a GUN to kill yourself with.


The odds are, you would do it some other way, if you didn't have a gun!

Either way, please kill yourself soon, for everyone's sake.

Hollow points. Make liberals cry and lessen an intruders chances to live, plus a round won't go through a wall into your neighbor's house.

Libhater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it's that the odds of using a GUN to kill yourself are
> higher if you actually HAVE a GUN to kill yourself with.
> The odds are, you would do it some other way, if you didn't
> have a gun!

BIG TIME WRONG! Guns allow mere impulses to take a life and have very high success rates. Every occupant of a home with a gun has a highly elevated risk of suicide.

Beagle with a big mouth, pistol, shotgun.

Be sure to get a cemetery plot as well.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libhater Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No, it's that the odds of using a GUN to kill
> yourself are
> > higher if you actually HAVE a GUN to kill
> yourself with.
> > The odds are, you would do it some other way, if
> you didn't
> > have a gun!
>
> BIG TIME WRONG! Guns allow mere impulses to take
> a life and have very high success rates. Every
> occupant of a home with a gun has a highly
> elevated risk of suicide.


Bullshit. People don't kill themselves because they have a gun in the closet any more than they hang themselves because they have a belt in the closet. Suicide by any means is nearly entirely limited to those who have long-term chronic mental illness.

What is the actual risk? Not relative. Not the bogus "elevated" bullshit. You can't or won't give it because you know that it's an insignificant difference. Since you won't I will. The difference is in the range of 0.000001 vs 0.000004. i.e., trivial.

Furthermore the "success rates" for all methods of suicide are basically the same - 100% when done in any serious way. If you shoot yourself in the head, or jump from any substantial height, or hang or cut yourself where someone won't find you relatively quickly, then you will die. The differences in stats are not due to the effectiveness of the chosen method. They reflect mainly greater numbers of para- and pseudo-suicide attempts by those not really committed to killing themselves. Jumping from 2nd-story windows. Taking an handful of Tylenol because their boyfriend broke up with them. Which is why poisoning/drugs are relatively low, not because people are "saved" in the ER. People who take enough of the right drugs die 100%.

Paying the gooks to eliminate the spics and niggers. The gooks at least are intelligent for savages.

upgrade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Internet of things Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just get IP cams off Amazon. All those services
> > like ADT are complete rip offs.
>
> everyone knows that. the question was which
> brands are not crap - and offer features like "not
> letting my neighbor open the cam with his android"


Dahua or Hikvision cams. You can find them for a little less as OEM versions from other sellers in the US (Laview, etc.). Axis or some others if you want US made with support/warranty and want to spend a ton of money.

But none of them are secure. They're all little ticking time bomb linux boxes waiting to happen that you're dropping behind your firewall. You need to handle all of them as if they're completely insecure. VLAN or otherwise wall them off by themselves. Block all incoming and outgoing traffic. Use a VPN as the only way into your network remotely.

To add...

Camera are not security systems.

A security system does what it does. Cameras do what they do. Guns and dogs and whatever else do what they do. Different purposes and uses.

Great security is having neighbors with something like this sign in their yard. Dirt bags will skip your house. This sign says a liberal lives here. It provides an excellent opportunity for scum bags to home invade this house because there are no guns, rape the women while the husband is forced to watch, and a high probability that liberal will empathize with the minority criminal as a victim of his environment and not press charges despite his family being murdered in front of him.

Don't be a stupid liberal, and don't put that crap in your yard.

https://10mosttoday.com/top-10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds-in-the-world/

Here is another yard sign that will attract many types of undesirable visitors.
Attachments:

Nothing will get your house robbed quicker than putting an NRA bumpersticker on your car out in the driveway.

In reality... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing will get your house robbed quicker than
> putting an NRA bumpersticker on your car out in
> the driveway.

Very true. That's why I don't have any.

A camera is not a "Security" or "Theft Deterrent" device. A camera cannot "Secure" an area, it "Monitors" the area.

You want good lighting, automated lighting and some form of door/window switches and/or motion detectors tied to a siren of some sort. The goal is first to make the property look unappealing to theft, then if someone attempts to enter the residence, an alarm sounds that will hopefully scare off the thief.

A noisy dog is also a good thing, they do not have to be big, but a big dog tends to be more of a threat to an intruder than a "Duster". I have 95 lbs. of big dog that can make a lot of noise. This is a good deterent.

This "Happy Homeowner" person and their ideas about guns is just stupid talk.

I have had guns in my house/possession for over 30 years and never a problem. People that cry about firearms usually have never handled them. current have about 25 guns in the house at this point and ready to use them if needed. I regularly spend time with my guns on the range and practice, everyone in the house, including the kids know how to handle weapons.

No security system or alarm system will stop an intruder in their tracks and have them leave the property quickly. It will take 8-15 minutes for the authorities to be dispatched and arrive on site. What will you be doing for the first 8-15 minutes??

In reality... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nothing will get your house robbed quicker than
> putting an NRA bumpersticker on your car out in
> the driveway.


I am a lifetime NRA Member. That being said - I CC, never in the open.

No NRA bumper stickers, flags, license plates, ball caps, tee shirts or anything that will signal that I own firearms.

Yeah, it’s just me and the FBI. Meanwhile guns in the home put you at GREATER risk, not lesser risk.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, it’s just me and the FBI. Meanwhile guns
> in the home put you at GREATER risk, not lesser
> risk.


The FBI knows only FAGS are at greater risk...not people like VTUPC and the rest of the sane, red blooded folks that make up the majority of the country.


Like most libtards, you homos love the stats that fit your agenda without understanding them. You sound like the kind of cuck that also advises people not to drive within 5 miles of your house because that's where most accidents occur.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, it’s just me and the FBI. Meanwhile guns
> in the home put you at GREATER risk, not lesser
> risk.


I'm sure no one that works for the FBI ever has a gun in their house.

They howl with laughter at you soy boys.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, it’s just me and the FBI. Meanwhile guns
> in the home put you at GREATER risk, not lesser
> risk.


False.

True, even for dumbasses. Guns in the home create lots of new risk while removing virtually none. Guns are just a dumb play.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True, even for dumbasses. Guns in the home create
> lots of new risk while removing virtually none.
> Guns are just a dumb play.

So what are you going to do when there is a black bear that shows up and threatens your kids or dog(s)?? Um, yes you dumb ass there are black bear in Fairfax Counter, I had one take a dump on the side of my driveway, have found many bear prints blocks from my house. They have been in my neighborhood busting up the bird feeders for seed.

Call Fairfax Animal Control, good luck, one guy for 400 square miles. Lucky if the guy shows up in 30 minutes, if they show up at all.

A warning shot or two, if this does not work, then you know what the next step is, I could care less if it is bear season. I will take my chances if if it is between my kids or animals.

Guess what, same thing happens when someone enters my house that does not belong here. Tell the intruder I am going to call the police, sure they will quickly leave, but they will sure leave a lot faster when then hear my cycle some bird shot in my Remington 870. You say bird shot, yep, less likely to kill but they sure will not want to stick around and see what is in the chamber behind the bird shot.

So just because you may have a gun in the house you are less safe?? I guess the guns just go around randomly shooting people? Stupid people make dangerous things even more unsafe. Cars, chain saws, kitchen knives, turkey fryers, lawn mowers, food processors, garbage disposals, hair dryers and water, cell phones, the list goes on and on. You cannot fix stupid.

Gun control is when you have someone that knows how to properly handle a weapon, not a bunch of pansies crying that more laws, rules and restrictions are required. Just look at Chicago, they have plenty of laws, rules and restrictions, but only the stupid law abiding citizens follow the laws, rules and restrictions. Look where Johnny citizen ends up in this bag of crap.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> True, even for dumbasses. Guns in the home create
> lots of new risk while removing virtually none.
> Guns are just a dumb play.


False. And you can't post anything from the FBI that says so as you claimed.

These are simply facts, dumbo. Sort of like the fact that gun violenc has been on a sharp rise. And the data you want don’t come from the FBI. They come from emergency room interviews. Imagine that n

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> These are simply facts, dumbo. Sort of like the
> fact that gun violenc has been on a sharp rise.
> And the data you want don’t come from the FBI.
> They come from emergency room interviews. Imagine
> that n


Doh...


Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, it’s just me and the FBI. Meanwhile guns
> in the home put you at GREATER risk, not lesser
> risk.


^ Your bullshit.

NUHVU Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what are you going to do when there is a black
> bear that shows up and threatens your kids or
> dog(s)??

Exactly what the Animal Protection Police say to do. Nothing. Just report the sighting and wait for the bear(s) to move on. Parading around like some macho dumbass is of course the LAST thing one should do. It increases the risk of harm to both humans and animals.

> A warning shot or two, if this does not work, then
> you know what the next step is, I could care less
> if it is bear season. I will take my chances if if
> it is between my kids or animals.

Is it legal to discharge firearms in the County? By the way, Animal Protection Police will not respond at all to situations like yours. Too dumb to bother with.

Black bears are not a problem. Black humans on the other hand are.

You're full of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Happy homeowner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > These are simply facts, dumbo. Sort of like the fact
> > that gun violence has been on a sharp rise. And the data
> > you want don’t come from the FBI. They come from emergency
> > room interviews. Imagine that n

> Doh...

> Happy homeowner Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Yeah, it’s just me and the FBI.

> ^ Your bullshit.

You're terrible at this. It is the FBI that tells you to run away in an intruder situation. It is the overwhelming data for increased risk of dying from a gunshot wound that come from hospital ER interviews. Do you see the difference there, or are you just too stupid to latch on?

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're full of shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Happy homeowner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > These are simply facts, dumbo. Sort of like
> the fact
> > > that gun violence has been on a sharp rise.
> And the data
> > > you want don’t come from the FBI. They come
> from emergency
> > > room interviews. Imagine that n
>
> > Doh...
>
> > Happy homeowner Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > > Yeah, it’s just me and the FBI.
>
> > ^ Your bullshit.
>
> You're terrible at this. It is the FBI that tells
> you to run away in an intruder situation. It is
> the overwhelming data for increased risk of dying
> from a gunshot wound that come from hospital ER
> interviews. Do you see the difference there, or
> are you just too stupid to latch on?


You're just blabbering now. As usual.

The FBI understands that running away isn't a viable option in many if not most circumstances requiring the use of deadly force. (They also carry guns btw if you hadn't noticed.)

ER reports do not address risk.

Meanwhile, actual BJS data from actual intrusion events show that armed homeowners are injured/killed at less than 1/3 the rate of those who are unarmed during an intrusion. And that intruders are very likely to be the ones injured or killed.

Bottomline, the risk of death or injury presented by a firearm in the home are trivially small for a typical homeowner and a gun provides a significant advantage in the event of an intrusion.

i have no doubt blacks believe home security devices should be made illegal, and so should home owners having weapons to protect their home with

they also believe if they are caught robbing a home and get shot, the homeowner should go to jail

the resistance to home security is obviously by people who steal shit

is there any "home security" product IP Camera that has released footage without the homeowner's permission

kinda like Experian releasing financial and personal information about MasterCard credit card users except for security cameras?

if a get a security cam i want to think none of the video is released unless i release it

is the bill gates generation even capable of offering such a product?

I'm a convicted felon
Attachments:

You're full of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The FBI understands that running away isn't a
> viable option in many if not most circumstances
> requiring the use of deadly force.

Pay attention: Their recommended options are clear: First, run away. Second, hide. Only as an absolute last resort should you try to confront an intruder. Were any of those words too big for you?

> ER reports do not address risk.

So hopelessly fucked up. ER reports associate injury or death with the absence or presence of a gun in the home.

> Bottomline, the risk of death or injury presented
> by a firearm in the home are trivially small for a
> typical homeowner and a gun provides a significant
> advantage in the event of an intrusion.

Absolutely wrong, meathead. Having guns in the home INCREASES risk. You are more likely to die by suicide and homicide as well as from some unintended discharge of a weapon when a gun is present. Those are the facts of the matter. even if you are just too dense to recognize them.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're full of shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The FBI understands that running away isn't a
> > viable option in many if not most circumstances
> > requiring the use of deadly force.
>
> Pay attention: Their recommended options are
> clear: First, run away. Second, hide. Only as
> an absolute last resort should you try to confront
> an intruder. Were any of those words too big for
> you?
>
> > ER reports do not address risk.
>
> So hopelessly fucked up. ER reports associate
> injury or death with the absence or presence of a
> gun in the home.
>
> > Bottomline, the risk of death or injury
> presented
> > by a firearm in the home are trivially small for
> a
> > typical homeowner and a gun provides a
> significant
> > advantage in the event of an intrusion.
>
> Absolutely wrong, meathead. Having guns in the
> home INCREASES risk. You are more likely to die
> by suicide and homicide as well as from some
> unintended discharge of a weapon when a gun is
> present. Those are the facts of the matter. even
> if you are just too dense to recognize them.

So what is your suggestion to solve this problem?

Know the facts. Go from there.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're full of shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The FBI understands that running away isn't a
> > viable option in many if not most circumstances
> > requiring the use of deadly force.
>
> Pay attention: Their recommended options are
> clear: First, run away. Second, hide. Only as
> an absolute last resort should you try to confront
> an intruder. Were any of those words too big for
> you?

Which as I said isn't an option in most cases requiring use of deadly force.

>
> > ER reports do not address risk.
>
> So hopelessly fucked up. ER reports associate
> injury or death with the absence or presence of a
> gun in the home.
>

No, they do not. They don't address risk and most gun injuries don't happen in the home to begin with.


> > Bottomline, the risk of death or injury
> presented
> > by a firearm in the home are trivially small for
> a
> > typical homeowner and a gun provides a
> significant
> > advantage in the event of an intrusion.
>
> Absolutely wrong, meathead. Having guns in the
> home INCREASES risk. You are more likely to die
> by suicide and homicide as well as from some
> unintended discharge of a weapon when a gun is
> present. Those are the facts of the matter. even
> if you are just too dense to recognize them.


Increases by an insignificant degree for a typical homeowner.

Who are not likely to die by suicide by any means to begin with. Unless you're a middle-aged white male with a long history of mental illness and substance abuse and past suicidal behavior, the risk is near zero.

Likewise, unless you're a black male 15-24 in an urban location involved in drug, gang, and other associated illegal activities, the risk of being a victim of gun homicide is near zero.

Accidental shooting deaths are tiny in number (1.3% of firearm deaths). Even lower for children (< 100/year in a population of +78 million from 0-18).

A large blanket to hide in and a Hillary Halloween mask, the latter is sure to scare anyone away

You're full of shit Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which as I said isn't an option in most cases
> requiring use of deadly force.

No case REQUIRES the use of deadly force. Only low-grade Eastwood-wannabe whackjobs think such things, which is why the FBI's #1 recommendation is to run away.

> No, they do not. They don't address risk and most gun
> injuries don't happen in the home to begin with.

God, but you're stupid! The point is to assess the effect that having guns in the home has on your risks of suffering injury or death from a gunshot wound. Gunshot wounds are one of the most serious (and expensive to treat) injuries that one can incur. A more than significant percentage of victims does indeed show up in an ER for treatment. Asking those patients if guns were kept in the home where they most often reside is a pretty simple matter, one which results in the data that you are too big of a gun-nut coward to face up to.

> Increases by an insignificant degree for a typical homeowner.

It's actually a very significant increase. About what the increase would be in the odds of your being hit by a drunk driver at night as against during the day.

< Unless you're a middle-aged white male with a long history
> of mental illness and substance abuse and past suicidal
> behavior, the risk is near zero.

Ah, the knee-jerk palm it off on "mental illness" bullshit. What a total and predictable farce that's become! The risks of suicide are meanwhile much, much higher in homes where guns are present than in homes where they are not. How fucking stupid are you willing to be here, anyway?

> Likewise, unless you're a black male 15-24 in an
> urban location involved in drug, gang, and other
> associated illegal activities, the risk of being a
> victim of gun homicide is near zero.

That too is a defective's diversion, as you should know perfectly well. The numbers of homicides in domestic disputes soar when there is access to guns. Age, race and other trivia are not determinative. Access to a gun is what matters. There are no excuses for that. It is a simple fact that the presence of guns in the home dramatically increases the chances of being killed or injured by a gun under every conceivable circumstance.

> Accidental shooting deaths are tiny in number
> (1.3% of firearm deaths). Even lower for children
> (< 100/year in a population of +78 million from 0-18).

How many people have been killed or injured while cleaning a gun in a household where no guns are present to begin with? Talk about tiny numbers!

Bottom line: proximity to a gun poses serious across-the-board risks to your life and health while offering no actual benefit at all.

Feel free to give up your rights to own a firearm, and I will feel free to keep my rights.

You can move to Chicago or another gun free city.

It is not the Constitution that causes the risks of injury and death from a gunshot would to go up. It is keeping guns in the home. End of story.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is not the Constitution that causes the risks
> of injury and death from a gunshot would to go up.
> It is keeping guns in the home. End of story.

Why, oh why do you feel the need to invest your time and energy into arguging and/or bashing someone you obviously disagree with and are not going to bring around to your way of thinking?

It makes sense to post your opinion and move on. When you engage in a back and forth complete with name calling you and the person you're trying to make look foolish BOTH earn that title.

Go ahead, bash me now. I hope you feel better.

smh...

No way I would ever live anywhere Without a firearm in my house. Go to hell gun grabbing idiot weaklings. This issue is Reason 2 of 60 million reasons why she lost. Reason 1 was the illegal hordes invading America for Democrat votes at any cost to this nation

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're full of shit Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Which as I said isn't an option in most cases
> > requiring use of deadly force.
>
> No case REQUIRES the use of deadly force. Only
> low-grade Eastwood-wannabe whackjobs think such
> things, which is why the FBI's #1 recommendation
> is to run away.


False. Which is why the law recognizes the need to use force to defend oneself in a variety of ways and circumstances.

The FBI doesn't make stupid recommendations independent of circumstances like that to begin with. It's just bullshit that you're pulling out of your ass. As always.

>
> > No, they do not. They don't address risk and
> most gun
> > injuries don't happen in the home to begin with.
>
>
> God, but you're stupid! The point is to assess
> the effect that having guns in the home has on
> your risks of suffering injury or death from a
> gunshot wound. Gunshot wounds are one of the most
> serious (and expensive to treat) injuries that one
> can incur. A more than significant percentage of
> victims does indeed show up in an ER for
> treatment. Asking those patients if guns were
> kept in the home where they most often reside is a
> pretty simple matter, one which results in the
> data that you are too big of a gun-nut coward to
> face up to.
>

ER data are not RISK assessments and do not capture the RISk of a gun in the home. If a person is shot outside of the home, whether they or someone else in their home owns a gun that had no involvement in the event is irrelevant. If a person is shot in a home by someone else who intrudes or otherwise brings a gun into that home, whether they or someone else in the home owns a gun that had no involvement in the event is irrelevant. Both far more common than homicides or accidental shootings using a gun kept in the home. Once again, common attempts to obfuscate and inflate risk as anti-gun nuts always disingenuously do.


> > Increases by an insignificant degree for a
> typical homeowner.
>
> It's actually a very significant increase. About
> what the increase would be in the odds of your
> being hit by a drunk driver at night as against
> during the day.
>

Which remains very small in either case. And you know who's far more likely to be injured of killed in drunk driving incidents? Those with prior drunk driving incidents. i.e., the risk is not spread evenly across the population. Just as it's not for guns in the home as you're attempting to do in conflating suicide and homicide deaths most all of which are entirely N/A relative to the matter of a typical homeowner's gun in their home.


> < Unless you're a middle-aged white male with a
> long history
> > of mental illness and substance abuse and past
> suicidal
> > behavior, the risk is near zero.
>
> Ah, the knee-jerk palm it off on "mental illness"
> bullshit. What a total and predictable farce
> that's become! The risks of suicide are meanwhile
> much, much higher in homes where guns are present
> than in homes where they are not. How fucking
> stupid are you willing to be here, anyway?

No, they are not. Belts do not cause anyone to commit suicide. Rope does not cause anyone to commit suicide. Likewise, guns do not cause anyone to commit suicide. Again, you misconstrue the use of a gun as a chosen method with risk.

>
> > Likewise, unless you're a black male 15-24 in
> an
> > urban location involved in drug, gang, and
> other
> > associated illegal activities, the risk of being
> a
> > victim of gun homicide is near zero.
>
> That too is a defective's diversion, as you should
> know perfectly well. The numbers of homicides in
> domestic disputes soar when there is access to
> guns. Age, race and other trivia are not
> determinative. Access to a gun is what matters.
> There are no excuses for that. It is a simple
> fact that the presence of guns in the home
> dramatically increases the chances of being killed
> or injured by a gun under every conceivable
> circumstance.

That's false. First, of all homicides in domestic disputes are a very small percentage of the total 35,000!!!! gun deaths that you shrilly scream about. On the order of 1,000-2,000/year depending on exactly what you want to count as a "domestic dispute." Only ~750/year are spouses killed by their spouse using a gun. And that includes things like women protecting themselves from attacks by current or former partners and other justifiable events. Second, guns are only used as the homicide weapon in about 50% of cases of domestic homicide showing that people are perfectly capable of finding alternatives and that the lack of a gun would not directly reduce that number. And once again, the RELATIVE potential risk does not reflect the ACTUAL risk which remains trivially small in the scheme of 100s of millions of guns in 10s of millions of homes.

>
> > Accidental shooting deaths are tiny in number
> > (1.3% of firearm deaths). Even lower for
> children
> > (< 100/year in a population of +78 million from
> 0-18).
>
> How many people have been killed or injured while
> cleaning a gun in a household where no guns are
> present to begin with? Talk about tiny numbers!
>

Derp. A few less than the extraordinarily few which happen. Far less than the number who die as a result of many other common household items. Your attempt to obscure the fact that accidental shootings are tiny in number by playing up suicides and homicides which are largely restricted to specific groups fails miserably.

> Bottom line: proximity to a gun poses serious
> across-the-board risks to your life and health
> while offering no actual benefit at all.


No, realistically it does not for a typical homeowner. As is always the case for anti-gun nuts, all of your "stats" consist of attempts to obscure and conflate the numbers as I've shown. You have to because the objective numbers don't support your case. The risk of a gun in the home for most all homeowners is trivially small. Which is why you have to try to play up the dumb relative "4X!!!" nonsense vs presenting actual numbers. 4X a one in millions level of risk remains 4 in millions. i.e., the same as your chances of winning the lottery increase by buying 4 tickets vs 1. And in this case since not chance-based, much lower if one is not within some specific characteristic groups.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is why the FBI advises homeowners in
> an invasion-type situation to run away if at all
> possible, and if not possible for some reason, to
> hide in as secure a spot as you can find.


False. The FBI issues no such advisory to homeowners.

You’d be a total moron.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You’d be a total moron.


False. You have no evidence to support either position. It’s why you came back with suck a weak response. If the FBI had made such a statement, a smart person would’ve provided a link to support that assertion. No link proves you are a liar.

I’m at the ballpark. Google it yourself, lazy-ass.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I’m at the ballpark. Google it yourself,
> lazy-ass.


No need as it doesn’t exist. And it won’t exist no matter where you are. There was never a doubt you were lying which is why you can’t provide a link. Even tomorrow, you won’t be able to provide a link. What excuse will you have then?

Typical brain dead asshole.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical brain dead asshole.

Typical bullshit response from a coward who has been cornered by his own bullshit lies.

Provide a link or admit you lied.

What’s it feel like to be exposed as a lying pussy?

you’re a lying coward Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typical bullshit response from a coward who has
> been cornered by his own bullshit lies.

Be sure to take your vitamins this morning, little boy. Then maybe you'll have the strength to use that Googler thing to go out and learn yourself
something...

What to do in an invasion situation...

!. Escape if you can.
2. If you can't, hide.
3. Only when forced into it as a very last resort should you
ever pick up a weapon of any sort and confront an intruder.

Sincerely,
The FBI and every other sane source in the galaxy.

> What’s it feel like to be exposed as a lying pussy?

No idea. You're the one with his pants down around his ankles after all. But maybe you could track down that guy who thought persons under US jurisdiction were not covered by Constitutional rights and protections. That guy suffered a terrible beating here a few weeks ago. Certainly he could answer your question for you.

No links. Imagine that, the cowardly liar can't back up his bullshit.

Here kitty, kitty, kitty. Again, go Google it yourself, you worthless junior asswipe. Take responsibility for your own ignorance and go do something about it. It's no use waiting around for smarter people to take the cause up for you,

But just as a freebie, most home invasions happen between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. You could go look that up as well, but I suspect that you are just too stupid to.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here kitty, kitty, kitty. Again, go Google it
> yourself, you worthless junior asswipe. Take
> responsibility for your own ignorance and go do
> something about it. It's no use waiting around
> for smarter people to take the cause up for you,

So IOW you just pulled it out of your ass.


> But just as a freebie, most home invasions happen
> between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. You could go look
> that up as well, but I suspect that you are just
> too stupid to.


Which is an irrelevant data point when ~30% of home intrusions/burglaries are occupied intrusions. An average of about 1 million occupied burglaries per year. About 250,000/year where the occupants become victims of violent crimes.

So, since you like playing the relative numbers game so much, on average a homeowner is ~45X more likely to experience an occupied home intrusion than to die by suicide with a firearm. 45X!!!

~11X more likely to be injured by an intruder during an intrusion than to commit suicide with a gun. 11X!!!

~100X more likely than to be a victim of a gun-involved homicide. 100X!!!

+500X more likely to experience an occupied intrusion than an accidental shooting death. +500 fucking X!!!!!!!

"Google it."

lol

Everything I say is substantiated fact per impeccable sources, whereas your posts have been mish-mashes of pre-digested partisan poppycock. Proximity to guns escalates rather than diminishes risk. In the event of a home break-in, the best thing one can do is to run away. Which is what you should have done some time ago.

upgrade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Internet of things Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Just get IP cams off Amazon. All those services
> > like ADT are complete rip offs.
>
> everyone knows that. the question was which
> brands are not crap - and offer features like "not
> letting my neighbor open the cam with his android"

If that's what concerns you I would make sure your network is secure (good router). Also go with power over ethernet cameras instead of wifi if you want further security.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everything I say is substantiated fact per
> impeccable sources, whereas your posts have been
> mish-mashes of pre-digested partisan poppycock.
> Proximity to guns escalates rather than diminishes
> risk. In the event of a home break-in, the best
> thing one can do is to run away. Which is what you
> should have done some time ago.


Which you can't provide a source for. lmao

Simple proximity to a gun itself means nothing in terms of escalating or diminishing risk. There are multiple factors involved which must be taken into account which dictate any actual risk of some event involving a gun. A gun is no different than a rope or any other inanimate object. It's not a case of, for example, simple exposure to asbestos or radon or some other risk in the home as you're inappropriately attempting to cast it.

In contrast to your bullshit, the numbers that I've given are the actual numbers which nobody contests. I just pointed out your intentional omissions and how you've attempted to obscure data and conflate them. Which as I said you have to do because the objective data doesn't fit your narrative. And ~250,000 home intrusions/year where an occupant is injured demonstrates that your run away approach doesn't work in far more cases than anyone is killed with a gun.

500X bro!!!

lol

upgrade Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> self installed products from stores please, like
> IP cams
>
> not package services a salesman pitches


Arlo cams. Wireless, easy setup, batteries last a good time between charges. Can be hardwired as well to avoid having to recharge. Phone app works well.

Property is theft. There is nothing I require or need to make my life complete. I have health, an open mind and a big dick. What more does one require?

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your odds of your killing yourself go up once a
> gun is in the home. The odds of someone else
> doing that job for you go up once a gun is in the
> home. The odds of your dying as the result of
> some "Darwin Award"-type accident go up once a gun
> is in the home. The odds that you will ever use a
> gun at all in a break-in sort of scenario are next
> to zero, and the odds that you would be able to do
> that successfully are much, much smaller than
> that. This is why the FBI advises homeowners in
> an invasion-type situation to run away if at all
> possible, and if not possible for some reason, to
> hide in as secure a spot as you can find. The
> last thing you want to do is go all Clint Eastwood
> loco. That's just another way to get yourself
> killed. Better that the TV gets boosted.
> Insurance will bring back a nice TV after all.

Over the years I've known one family with a dead teenager, a 2nd one with a teenager paralyzed for life.
Both had shotguns in the house.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here kitty, kitty, kitty. Again, go Google it
> yourself, you worthless junior asswipe. Take
> responsibility for your own ignorance and go do
> something about it. It's no use waiting around
> for smarter people to take the cause up for you,
>
> But just as a freebie, most home invasions happen
> between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM. You could go look
> that up as well, but I suspect that you are just
> too stupid to.


Nothing to be found on Google. Did you really want me to point out you're a lying coward?

Maybe you want to show us how smart you are and post the link.

Happy Homeowner is such a piece of garbage, typical whiner and trying to preach and push his own personal agenda.

So to follow his logic, then the same hold true for anything that can be used a weapon or is dangerous in and around the house. So kitchen knives, food processors, blenders, Tide Pods, golf clubs, baseball bats, hammers, axes, shovels and so forth. To take is further, vehicles need to be banned because in the wrong hands or the with a mentally deranged person behind the wheel a vehicle is a deadly weapon.

Time to move to a cult in the middle of nowhere and live on fruits and vegetables with like minded fools.

It's all about an agenda. No discussion, just his ideals and his way. And of course starts name calling and personally attacking people when things do not go his way. What a Liberal punch drinker. Free Speech is only their way when it fits the Liberal agenda. Its not even about Free Thought and Ideals, it is all about the Left's Thought and Ideals, their way or the highway.

So much plain as day butthurt. By the way, a dead argument is never revived by piling even more worthless bullshit on top of it.

And as everyone knows, we have all sorts of safety laws that seek to protect folks from every major source and cause of death and significant injury except for guns. Why is that?

GHGJK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Happy Homeowner is such a piece of garbage,
> typical whiner and trying to preach and push his
> own personal agenda.
>
> So to follow his logic, then the same hold true
> for anything that can be used a weapon or is
> dangerous in and around the house. So kitchen
> knives, food processors, blenders, Tide Pods,

Tide Pods. lmao. Your retort almost makes up for having spend time scrolling past HH's rants. Thank you.

Keeping guns in the home still increases your risk, rather than reducing it. Your best action in a home invasion is still to run away, or failing that, to hide and be quiet. As a society, we still take actions to limit the injury and death that can result from major sources of those things. Except for guns. I guess the founders must have wanted us to suffer a lot of injury and death.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So much plain as day butthurt. By the way, a dead
> argument is never revived by piling even more
> worthless bullshit on top of it.
>
> And as everyone knows, we have all sorts of safety
> laws that seek to protect folks from every major
> source and cause of death and significant injury
> except for guns. Why is that?

Safety and laws, what a joke. It is common sense, you do not play with sharp objects or things that go boom! You do not touch things that are hot, otherwise you will get burned. Simple things your parents should have taught you when you were young. Seems many people missed this or forgot everything they learned.

Laws are there only for people that choose to follow them. Bad people do not follow laws anyway.

There are Drunk Driving laws, but they do not appear to help much as there are still plenty of people that drive drunk and are unsafe and/or kill people.

I guess it is time to outlaw alcohol and if you have alcohol in the house you are far more at risk, probably just as much as risk as having a gun in the house.

Happy Homeowner you need to live in a padded room with no sharp or electromechanical devices as you may hurt yourself or someone else.

LMAO!

Guns cause increased risk of death and serious injury simply from being someplace near them. You don't have to own one or touch one. Just being near one will do it.

Happy Homeowner has yet to provide a link to support his assertions. It appears he is caught in his lie. Perhaps it's because there are no links to support his lie.

Being a lying coward is so shameful.

There is little worse than deliberate ignorance -- having the truth plainly put before you and yet rejecting it. Of course there are some here who are simply not smart enough to see the truth under much of any circumstances at all.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is little worse than deliberate ignorance --
> having the truth plainly put before you and yet
> rejecting it. Of course there are some here who
> are simply not smart enough to see the truth under
> much of any circumstances at all.


Go ahead, cure my ignorance. Provide a link. If you can...

Cowardly liar.

If there is anything that you have demonstrated here, it is that there is no cure for your particular form of ignorance. Were you not such a lost cause, you would in fact have cured yourself long ago.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there is anything that you have demonstrated
> here, it is that there is no cure for your
> particular form of ignorance. Were you not such a
> lost cause, you would in fact have cured yourself
> long ago.


I still don't see a link supporting your assertion. Isn't about time you admit the fact that you are a liar?

Why would you even need a link? Why were you not aware of all these facts to begin with? Why are you so attached to your feeble ignorance as to not go correct your many errors and misunderstandings on your own?

By the way, research shows that feelings of personal inadequacy are often what pushes people into the purchase of a gun.

A link shows that what you purport to be true is, in fact, true.

Your refusal to provide a link, on the other hand, proves that you made up your claim about the FBI.

The fact of the matter is the FBI has not issued the advisory you claim they did.

Simply put, you are a liar.

Happy homeowner Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Guns cause increased risk of death and serious
> injury simply from being someplace near them. You
> don't have to own one or touch one. Just being
> near one will do it.


Same with cigarettes and Radon and plenty of other things.

So what is your point you spineless worm?