Quantcast
video surveillance at range: good idea? - Page 2 - THR
THR  

Go Back   THR > Social Situations > General Gun Discussions

Welcome to THR
You are currently viewing our site as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions, articles and access our other FREE features. By joining our free community you will have, access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!


If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please visit the help section.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old July 25, 2014, 02:07 PM   #26
HankR
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 14, 2011
Location: upper midwest
Posts: 430
Quote:
...as a member of a private range I would no longer be a member if the decision was made to record everything
Just to play paranoid Devil's Advocate for awhile, I was a range officer at a range in the DC area when the "Beltway Sniper" was running amok. Cops were demanding membership lists, and wanting to know who had an AR 15. I pretty much honestly told them I didn't know, and kicked the problem up to the next pay grade (we were all volunteers). I'm glad that I didn't have video for them to subpena/steal. There were no knock raids on the nightly news, some from these lists, others from neighbors mentioning that somebody had a black rifle, none for any real probable cause.
HankR is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 02:57 PM   #27
cpt-t
Member
 
 
Join Date: December 25, 2011
Location: South Central Kansas
Posts: 351
Well GUYS our Gun Club was having some problems with theft and vandism so we put up trail cameras in very well hiden places in 5 or 6 places around our ranges. But we are not very High Tech and darn sure not the sharpest knives in the drawer. And some one stole every one of our super well hiden cameras. Wasn`t funny then, but sorta is now. I didn`t help on that detail so I thought it was funny when it happened and it still is to me. The guys that put up and hid the cameras braged that no one would never beable to find them. They are kinda of tight liped about this topic now, and this subject is sorta testy. If some one by ((( ACIDENT ))) happends to bring this up .
ken
__________________
THE PRICE OF FREEDOM, IS NOT FREE.
cpt-t is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 04:44 PM   #28
buck460XVR
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 6, 2007
Posts: 4,292
They're a great idea. With the cost of such systems now being so affordable, it's almost foolish anyplace where there is a possibility of vandalism or dangerous activity, not to use 'em. Not only does the recording of incidents promote prosecution, just the presence of them provides a deterrence. As for those folks that think it's a invasion of their privacy....stay at home, with your shades pulled tight. Otherwise you are being recorded. Can't pull up to a gas pump, walk in a restaurant, or WalMart without having your image recorded. Most public buildings have them. Whether you go in the bank or just use the drive-up window, the man knows you're there. Walk down the street past a stoplight and odds are it's being recorded. Got something to hide you don't want the cameras to see you at the range....stay home and shoot on your own range. Or get over it.
__________________
Guns are like Harleys and women.....you can never have too many.


Theiyr're...........take that Grammar Nazis!
buck460XVR is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 06:04 PM   #29
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 2,427
Incidents, ranges.....

I agree with the last post.
A clean, well run, chain place near me has DV/CCTV cams in every lane of the gun range.
Are they doing this for privacy reasons? No! Are they being excessive? No!
With a series of suicides & murder-suicides in gun ranges, I wouldn't blame any business or big company from wanting to have better security systems.
The range cadre(armed) need to be aware of any problems or unsafe acts.

Rusty
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 08:08 PM   #30
Drail
Member
 
 
Join Date: January 17, 2008
Posts: 3,589
CCTV cameras do not provide "security" any more than the circus clowns in blue at the airport. If they did then all we would need at every military post or base is a gate with some cameras on it instead of armed guards. Or ask Obama what he thinks of replacing all of the security people at the White House with some cheap video cameras. The last range I worked at installed dusk to dawn lights on the range for "security". Two weeks later they were all shot out. Never again. I never agreed with the whole concept of "let them go ahead and commit a crime and then we'll catch them later".
Drail is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 08:22 PM   #31
DT Guy
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 23, 2003
Posts: 972
As mentioned earlier, cameras are not for 'security', they are for 'accountability.'

As someone who administers 10-11 commercial grade camera systems (of 20 to 100 cameras each), I can attest that the expense and upkeep from a technologically up-to-date system is not justified by preventing criminal acts (except for the difficult-to-quantify deterrence they provide), it's to facilitate investigation after the event.

As for cameras getting shot out, the proper placement of cameras in a 'self-supervising' arrangement, as appropriate in a high-risk environment, will make that highly investigate-able as well. Some will go so far as to make sure the most prominent 'cameras' aren't even cameras, while the extra-high resolution cameras supervising the decoy 'cam' are able to see anyone who observes or accesses it. Look up 'video herding' or 'video push' techniques.

If cameras didn't work, tight-fisted businesses wouldn't spend half a million dollars or more installing them.

Larry
__________________
Government, Anarchy and Chaos
DT Guy is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 08:33 PM   #32
oldillini
Member
 
 
Join Date: October 19, 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 120
Personally support video of the facilities. I have nothing to hide and am tired of paying for irresponsible members at our club. We are gated and secure so the likelihood of the vandalism is by members. Destroys property without a concern for who has to pay. Go for it.
__________________
Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds. __ Thurgood Marshall
oldillini is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 10:28 PM   #33
Sam1911
Moderator
 
 
Join Date: October 22, 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 28,305
Quote:
I never agreed with the whole concept of "let them go ahead and commit a crime and then we'll catch them later".
How does that help our friend here? He can't lock them out and he can't post a 24-hour human armed guard to act as physical deterrence.

Shooting out security lights is nothing like shooting out security cameras. Most lights can't take your picture and send it to a monitoring station before you pull the trigger. Cameras can.

Unless you're going to provide some kind of physical resistance to vandals (i.e.: someone with a gun who will SHOOT them ) then a well planned security camera system is the next best thing.

It doesn't do much good to poo-poo the idea simply because it isn't maximum security. Budget will be the compelling actor, and these systems WORK.
__________________
-- Sam

"...with liberty and justice for all." (Must be 18. Void where prohibited. Some restrictions may apply. Not available in all states.)
-D. Stanhope

Sights Practical Shooters -- IDPA

My Knife Showroom
Sam1911 is offline  
Old July 25, 2014, 10:53 PM   #34
twofifty
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 21, 2007
Posts: 1,482
Thank you. Yes, we can only do what we can.

It would be nice to have much more money and unlimited power on site. Then we could layer the defenses and address the weak points raised in this thread.

No doubt the system will be challenged by a few local residents. Once the subsequent police interviews occur, the vandals will move on to easier pastures. Word gets around fast in a small isolated rural town of 4,000 residents and but one high school.

Any other tips are welcome.
twofifty is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 07:53 AM   #35
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 2,427
Security systems.....

I never said CCTVs or DVs could or would replace security measures anywhere but they are part of a security system.
You don't need armed guards or 24hr police but you can be prepared to deal with any problems/document activity.

As noted, security DV models are lower cost & offer more features.

Rusty
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 10:18 AM   #36
buckhorn_cortez
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 8, 2010
Posts: 293
Quote:
The gate, if there was one, does not offer solar panel protection options (at this time) because of where it is located on our lot. Anyhow, a heavy motorized gate is beyond our electricity generating capacity.
You don't need a motorized gate. Use a Forest Service type pipe gate with an electromagnetic lock. The locks work on DC voltage and have extremely low power requirements.

The rule is that you're responsible for closing the gate in back of you entering or exiting. You're going to have a camera at the gate and if the vehicle entering / exiting leaves the gate open - they're out of the club.

You can get locks with internal "bond sensor" that indicates if the lock is open or closed. The way you would setup the gate is to issue a proximity card to each member. Presentation of the card to a card reader at the gate would momentarily drop the power to the lock so the gate can be opened.

The system would require an access control field processor (again extremely low power) to interface the card read and electromagnetic lock. The system can be setup with a cellular auto-dialer so that if the gate is left open, the system will dial one or more pre-programmed phone numbers to alert the appropriate people to the gate being open.

You review the recorded video to find out who left the gate open, and then send them a letter warning them of the infraction and if it happens again - their card will be deleted from the system and they will no longer have range access.

Look at Door King for the field processor, Securitron for the electromagnetic lock, and HID for the proximity cards and card readers.

The Forest Service style gate can be fabricated by any gate company who should also be able to supply all of the appropriate access control equipment.

If you want a gate operator for an automated gate, you can find solar powered gate operators. One of the best is made by HySecurity.

The HySecurity operators use either DC motors or DC hydraulic pumps to operate and are easily powered by a solar panel with a deep cycle 12 Volt battery.
buckhorn_cortez is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 01:41 PM   #37
Huskerguy
Member
 
 
Join Date: June 9, 2012
Location: Central Kansas
Posts: 162
At our indoor range we have to wear a badge with our name on it. The badge gets us in through the electronic lock. Works well unless you walk out the door and forget our badge like I did once.

We have cameras all over in our range. It doesn't bother me that someone MAY watch me. Someone isn't sitting there watching all of the digital pics 24/7. They only watch if there has been a problem or if they suspect someone has been causing a problem. If someone isn't handling firearms properly they will say something if they spot it.

We put an entirely new system in our private school. It was very easy and very inexpensive. It didn't take any time at all and it is pretty much plug and play these days. The pics are amazingly good and prices are very reasonable.

I am in the boat as those who thing we are losing too much of our privacy but there are times when something like this makes sense. Safety of everyone around is key.
Huskerguy is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 01:52 PM   #38
The Lone Haranguer
Member
 
 
Join Date: July 30, 2006
Location: Johnson City, TN
Posts: 11,555
I see nothing wrong, on the surface, with the concept. (This is not to say that if I dug deeper I wouldn't find problems or unintended consequences.) It also should be extended to the parking lot. There have been cases of range patrons mugged for their guns.
The Lone Haranguer is offline  
Old July 26, 2014, 02:21 PM   #39
Baron66
Member
 
 
Join Date: February 12, 2014
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 47
Cameras are a great DETERRENT, and I definitely recommend them. Once you have them you will wonder how you ever got by without them.

Yes, it's true that if someone was really determined they could beat the cameras but they could also drive through your gate and shoot your RO if they were that determined. For the other 99.9% of offenders, the cameras will help deter them.

Also, you are not going to have internet out there so you will need a DVR recording system. Just make sure it's well secured somewhere that's not obvious. And, that DVR will use alot more power that you may have available.
Baron66 is offline  
Old July 27, 2014, 05:48 AM   #40
RustyShackelford
Member
 
 
Join Date: April 27, 2006
Posts: 2,427
RFIDs.....

I saw a media item about a large school district that was T&Eing a "new" modern access control/ID system. This was in the months after Sandy-Hook/Newtown CT 2012.
The students(K-6, jr high range) had digital photo IDs with RFID chips(radio frequency identity).
The intent was a fast, accurate way of finding/IDing school kids in a critical incident or natural disaster.
I would not support it for my kid(s) if I were a parent there or on the school board/PTA. My concerns would be some Petey Pedo or hacker gaining full access to each child in the school. Knowing where they are or when they'd be at a location.

The whole plan reminded me of the old Garth Brooks country song lyric; The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I told my ex(who was on the faculty at Texas A&M in College Station, TX) that Id smash or break my school ID as often as I could if I were a kid there.
__________________
If you don't practice, you don't deserve to win.

Andre Agassi
RustyShackelford is offline  
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise.
This site, its contents, Shooting Reviews, and its contents are Copyright (c) 2010-2013 Firearms Forum, Inc.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER
Although The High Road has attempted to provide accurate information on the forum, The High Road assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of the information. All information is provided "as is" with all faults without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. Neither The High Road nor any of its directors, members, managers, employees, agents, vendors, or suppliers will be liable for any direct, indirect, general, bodily injury, compensatory, special, punitive, consequential, or incidental damages including, without limitation, lost profits or revenues, costs of replacement goods, loss or damage to data arising out of the use or inability to use this forum or any services associated with this forum, or damages from the use of or reliance on the information present on this forum, even if you have been advised of the possibility of such damages.