NationStates Jolt Archive

Crime in the US has sky-rocketed to almost absurd heights. Today, Mayor Bloomberg's car was stolen -- yes, the mayor's car. Does nobody have even one iota of respect for authority anymore? To what level has our society regressed in this modern day and age? If not even the mayor is safe from rampant crime, who is? The turpitude of criminals leaves one aghast -- they are practically becoming more depraved by the second. This immorality of our modern culture is deleterious to society as a whole -- no bounds are known to criminals; even walking down the street at night can be parlous. Thus, we need to install a programme to re-instate at least a semblance of law and order in our country.

I have contemplated the problem and have decided that two prongs of attack are necessary. The first is adding cameras to monitor every square inch of public property -- it may be costly, but it is worth it. I don't know why so many people oppose such measures (guess what -- people can see you in public, so a camera should also be able to see you). It is definitely not an infringement on civil liberties -- nowhere in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to privacy. Anyway, once a crime is committed, the tapes can be reviewed to reveal who the perpetrator was. Simple, yet effective. I expect crime will plummet following a ratification of this measure.

Furthermore, we need to deal more harshly with criminals. For some of the rougher elements, prison is a joke. We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off. If you steal, off with your hands. If you murder, you get murdered. Again, simple, but effective. The punishment should fit the crime and act as a sufficient deterrent to help reduce crime. We need to protect ordinary folks from the vultures who prey upon them and defend society against a criminal onslaught. We need to say that we will not tolerate crime any longer, and we should make criminals think twice before committing a transgression. I know this may sound a bit heartless, but after all, if we are willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan over 3000 people, shouldn't we be willing to take less drastic measures for 10 times as many people?

and here we go again....

i can't be bothered this time, i have work to do. this is a bookmark for me so i can catch up with the ensuing hilarity at a later date.

I agree with the first part. Big Brother should be allowed to watch us. That is, of course, only to keep us physically safe. Not "mentally" or "spiritually" safe.

I don't agree with the second. Violence only begets more violence. I don't care what people say about those kind of punishments detering crime. They only push people to become more crafty and devious in how they commit crimes. It's a fact: The harder the punishment, the harder it is to catch people. How to solve the problem? By, of course, stopping the root of the crime. Most people steal because it's the only way they know how to survive. Therefore we must put more money into public education in order to teach people other ways to survive, like how to hold a job. A pyschopath on the loose? Maybe we should put more money into public healthcare so his pyschopathy could've been ended while he was a child. The list goes on. Put more money into funds for things that help the people and you won't need any money in trying to prevent crime.

We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off. If you steal, off with your hands. If you murder, you get murdered. Again, simple, but effective.

Go move to Iran, there buddy.

Iraq and Afghanistan use such sorts of capital/corporal punishments and we all know what peaceful utopias they turned out to be!

Crime in the US has sky-rocketed to almost absurd heights. Today, Mayor Bloomberg's car was stolen -- yes, the mayor's car. Does nobody have even one iota of respect for authority anymore? To what level has our society regressed in this modern day and age? If not even the mayor is safe from rampant crime, who is? The turpitude of criminals leaves one aghast -- they are practically becoming more depraved by the second. This immorality of our modern culture is deleterious to society as a whole -- no bounds are known to criminals; even walking down the street at night can be parlous. Thus, we need to install a programme to re-instate at least a semblance of law and order in our country.
OK with this...
I have contemplated the problem and have decided that two prongs of attack are necessary. The first is adding cameras to monitor every square inch of public property -- it may be costly, but it is worth it. I don't know why so many people oppose such measures (guess what -- people can see you in public, so a camera should also be able to see you). It is definitely not an infringement on civil liberties -- nowhere in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to privacy. Anyway, once a crime is committed, the tapes can be reviewed to reveal who the perpetrator was. Simple, yet effective. I expect crime will plummet following a ratification of this measure.
I can respect this....
Furthermore, we need to deal more harshly with criminals. For some of the rougher elements, prison is a joke. We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off. If you steal, off with your hands. If you murder, you get murdered. Again, simple, but effective. The punishment should fit the crime and act as a sufficient deterrent to help reduce crime. We need to protect ordinary folks from the vultures who prey upon them and defend society against a criminal onslaught. We need to say that we will not tolerate crime any longer, and we should make criminals think twice before committing a transgression. I know this may sound a bit heartless, but after all, if we are willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan over 3000 people, shouldn't we be willing to take less drastic measures for 10 times as many people?

Thats where you lose me, ever heard of "no Cruel or unusual punishments"???

No thanks, I'd rather not live in Saudi-Arabia like society.

Crime in the US has sky-rocketed to almost absurd heights. Today, Mayor Bloomberg's car was stolen -- yes, the mayor's car. Does nobody have even one iota of respect for authority anymore? To what level has our society regressed in this modern day and age? If not even the mayor is safe from rampant crime, who is? The turpitude of criminals leaves one aghast -- they are practically becoming more depraved by the second. This immorality of our modern culture is deleterious to society as a whole -- no bounds are known to criminals; even walking down the street at night can be parlous. Thus, we need to install a programme to re-instate at least a semblance of law and order in our country.

I have contemplated the problem and have decided that two prongs of attack are necessary. The first is adding cameras to monitor every square inch of public property -- it may be costly, but it is worth it. I don't know why so many people oppose such measures (guess what -- people can see you in public, so a camera should also be able to see you). It is definitely not an infringement on civil liberties -- nowhere in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to privacy. Anyway, once a crime is committed, the tapes can be reviewed to reveal who the perpetrator was. Simple, yet effective. I expect crime will plummet following a ratification of this measure.

Furthermore, we need to deal more harshly with criminals. For some of the rougher elements, prison is a joke. We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off. If you steal, off with your hands. If you murder, you get murdered. Again, simple, but effective. The punishment should fit the crime and act as a sufficient deterrent to help reduce crime. We need to protect ordinary folks from the vultures who prey upon them and defend society against a criminal onslaught. We need to say that we will not tolerate crime any longer, and we should make criminals think twice before committing a transgression. I know this may sound a bit heartless, but after all, if we are willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan over 3000 people, shouldn't we be willing to take less drastic measures for 10 times as many people?

How's about improving education and social welfare so this crap will happen less often?

And chopping a rapist's balls off will send us back to the Middle Ages, whereas death is not a punishment, but rather a way out. And there's already cameras! Jesus H. Christ, dude, cameras aren't deterrents, they're recording devices! They won't help, because we now have cameras and CRIME IS STILL RISING! And many states in the US have the death penalty, which obviously isn't a deterrent either! So what now? Do we just overcrowd or prions more? NO! We improve social welfare and education so that this crap doesn't happen!

I don't agree with the second. Violence only begets more violence. I don't care what people say about those kind of punishments detering crime. They only push people to become more crafty and devious in how they commit crimes. It's a fact: The harder the punishment, the harder it is to catch people. How to solve the problem? By, of course, stopping the root of the crime. Most people steal because it's the only way they know how to survive. Therefore we must put more money into public education in order to teach people other ways to survive, like how to hold a job. A pyschopath on the loose? Maybe we should put more money into public healthcare so his pyschopathy could've been ended while he was a child. The list goes on. Put more money into funds for things that help the people and you won't need any money in trying to prevent crime.

True, some people are indeed driven to crime because it is the only means by which they can lead a comfortable life. Will pouring more money into public education rectify this problem? No, people will always want a better life, and there will always be people who are unemployed. Public healthcare, on the other hand, is a failure, and psychopaths don't really account for that much crime. We should provide for cheaper, privatized healthcare, however. Most crime, however, isn't committed by people who are forced to do so out of necessity -- they are driven to it because of avarice. They see it is an easy way to make a couple bucks or to kill your enemy. Some do it just for the hell of it, even though they know it's wrong. In fact, some may do it because it's wrong because they know the consequences will not be harsh.

We stand upon the brink of a precipice. We peer into the abyss -- we grow sick and dizzy. Our first impulse is to shrink from the danger. Unaccountably we remain. By slow degrees our sickness and dizziness and horror become merged in a cloud of unnamable feeling. By gradations, still more imperceptible, this cloud assumes shape, as did the vapor from the bottle out of which arose the genius in the Arabian Nights. But out of this our cloud upon the precipice's edge, there grows into palpability, a shape, far more terrible than any genius or any demon of a tale, and yet it is but a thought, although a fearful one, and one which chills the very marrow of our bones with the fierceness of the delight of its horror. It is merely the idea of what would be our sensations during the sweeping precipitancy of a fall from such a height. And this fall -- this rushing annihilation -- for the very reason that it involves that one most ghastly and loathsome of all the most ghastly and loathsome images of death and suffering which have ever presented themselves to our imagination -- for this very cause do we now the most vividly desire it. And because our reason violently deters us from the brink, therefore do we the most impetuously approach it. There is no passion in nature so demoniacally impatient, as that of him who, shuddering upon the edge of a precipice, thus meditates a Plunge. To indulge, for a moment, in any attempt at thought, is to be inevitably lost; for reflection but urges us to forbear, and therefore it is, I say, that we cannot. If there be no friendly arm to check us, or if we fail in a sudden effort to prostrate ourselves backward from the abyss, we plunge, and are destroyed.

I don't want cameras everywhere in public! Cameras are worthless anyways. In Charlotte they have a red light camera, for people who runs the red light. Do you know what the punishment is for that? $50. That is it, no points on drivers license, no insurance hike, just fork over $50 and you're off the hook. So far in the United States, cameras that are funded by Gov. Co. are used for the pure profit of making cash. Now for privately funded cameras that you see in gas stations, banks, and other privately owned places, yea they are there for security. However, anytime you put Gov. Co. in charge of security, they'll come after the crime has happened, write up a report, and then fine the criminal and/or jail time. Plus, putting cameras up in public places is just another step towards a 1984 society!

If you really want to have Gov. Co. deter crime, then have Gov. Co. offer self defense classes, and classes on protecting your home, your car, and your family. Those classes will be free. The class should cover the diffrent method you should use for Self Defense, and they should help you decide which is best for you. This way people will start standing up for themselves, not rely on the police to basically do clean up, and criminals will start to realize that the general population cannot be bullied anymore.

Putting security cameras in crime hotspots isnt a bad idea, maybe habing more streetlamps would be a good idea too, but you cant monitor everything, thats just goes too far, and the cost of having cameras covering everywhere....

As for punishments to violent crimes... well what New Naliitr said, and i think rehab is more effective that keeping them in prison for years (or cutting limbs off), which can sometimes make the problem worse

Crime in the US has sky-rocketed to almost absurd heights. Today, Mayor Bloomberg's car was stolen -- yes, the mayor's car. Does nobody have even one iota of respect for authority anymore? To what level has our society regressed in this modern day and age? If not even the mayor is safe from rampant crime, who is? The turpitude of criminals leaves one aghast -- they are practically becoming more depraved by the second. This immorality of our modern culture is deleterious to society as a whole -- no bounds are known to criminals; even walking down the street at night can be parlous. Thus, we need to install a programme to re-instate at least a semblance of law and order in our country.

I have contemplated the problem and have decided that two prongs of attack are necessary. The first is adding cameras to monitor every square inch of public property -- it may be costly, but it is worth it. I don't know why so many people oppose such measures (guess what -- people can see you in public, so a camera should also be able to see you). It is definitely not an infringement on civil liberties -- nowhere in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to privacy. Anyway, once a crime is committed, the tapes can be reviewed to reveal who the perpetrator was. Simple, yet effective. I expect crime will plummet following a ratification of this measure.

Furthermore, we need to deal more harshly with criminals. For some of the rougher elements, prison is a joke. We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off. If you steal, off with your hands. If you murder, you get murdered. Again, simple, but effective. The punishment should fit the crime and act as a sufficient deterrent to help reduce crime. We need to protect ordinary folks from the vultures who prey upon them and defend society against a criminal onslaught. We need to say that we will not tolerate crime any longer, and we should make criminals think twice before committing a transgression. I know this may sound a bit heartless, but after all, if we are willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan over 3000 people, shouldn't we be willing to take less drastic measures for 10 times as many people?

I agree with most of what you say, but this isn't Saudi Arabia-we don't cut off thieves hands. That's taking it an inch too far.

Otherwise, you're spot on.

and here we go again....

i can't be bothered this time, i have work to do. this is a bookmark for me so i can catch up with the ensuing hilarity at a later date.

Hey, your postcount was exactly 1,984 when I got to reading this. I think that's quite ironic for a thread that is proposing Orwellian measures to fight "the crime wave".

And MTAE, like every idea you have ever had, this is moronic and contemptable.

If you really want to have Gov. Co. deter crime, then have Gov. Co. offer self defense classes, and classes on protecting your home, your car, and your family. Those classes will be free. The class should cover the diffrent method you should use for Self Defense, and they should help you decide which is best for you. This way people will start standing up for themselves, not rely on the police to basically do clean up, and criminals will start to realize that the general population cannot be bullied anymore.

I know this is an unpopular opinion; but it would also help if Citizens were allowed to carry guns and use them for self-protection...

Plus, putting cameras up in public places is just another step towards a 1984 society!

It all depends on WHAT the cameras are used for. If they are used for PHYSICALLY protecting people, I'm fine with it. But if they start using it to root out "subverise behavior" (I.E. wearing all black), THEN it's going to 1984-dom.

Iraq and Afghanistan use such sorts of capital/corporal punishments and we all know what peaceful utopias they turned out to be!

....and yet there was virtually no such thing as street crime back when saddam ran the show.

And there's already cameras! Jesus H. Christ, dude, cameras aren't deterrents, they're recording devices! They won't help, because we now have cameras and CRIME IS STILL RISING!

There are not that many cameras at all -- I am talking about networks of cameras that can cover practically every inch of residential space, not the joke of a programme that is currently in place. While they may not be that great a deterrent, they will prove quite useful in allowing us to aprehend criminals. If you have no criminals, you have no crime, despite the deterrent value of your anti-crime legislation.

True, some people are indeed driven to crime because it is the only means by which they can lead a comfortable life. Will pouring more money into public education rectify this problem? No, people will always want a better life, and there will always be people who are unemployed. Public healthcare, on the other hand, is a failure, and psychopaths don't really account for that much crime. We should provide for cheaper, privatized healthcare, however. Most crime, however, isn't committed by people who are forced to do so out of necessity -- they are driven to it because of avarice. They see it is an easy way to make a couple bucks or to kill your enemy. Some do it just for the hell of it, even though they know it's wrong. In fact, some may do it because it's wrong because they know the consequences will not be harsh.

True, but you have to admit that quite a bit of crime is indeed commited out of necessity, just like you said in the other thread. Poor, black communities are filled with people who never had a chance at life, and do indeed commit crimes to survive. Or if they did have a chance, it was swept out from under them. If we provide social benefits to those neighborhoods, the crime in those areas will decrease dramatically. Of course, it's not "their fault", as you said. And it's not just black people without a chance, it's just that black people have a tendency to be oppressed more. Not publicly, but it certainly happens, no matter what anyone who points to MLK says.

I don't want cameras everywhere in public! Cameras are worthless anyways. In Charlotte they have a red light camera, for people who runs the red light. Do you know what the punishment is for that? $50. That is it, no points on drivers license, no insurance hike, just fork over $50 and you're off the hook. So far in the United States, cameras that are funded by Gov. Co. are used for the pure profit of making cash. Now for privately funded cameras that you see in gas stations, banks, and other privately owned places, yea they are there for security. However, anytime you put Gov. Co. in charge of security, they'll come after the crime has happened, write up a report, and then fine the criminal and/or jail time. Plus, putting cameras up in public places is just another step towards a 1984 society!

If you really want to have Gov. Co. deter crime, then have Gov. Co. offer self defense classes, and classes on protecting your home, your car, and your family. Those classes will be free. The class should cover the diffrent method you should use for Self Defense, and they should help you decide which is best for you. This way people will start standing up for themselves, not rely on the police to basically do clean up, and criminals will start to realize that the general population cannot be bullied anymore.


It's cameras. IN PUBLIC. I don't have a problem with cameras in public. PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU IN PUBLIC. Therefore, we can have our cameras but we're not being careful with them, we're not really helping crime at all, are we? And no, cameras in public won't really be much of a 1984 soceity (I'm finally readign the book! yay!), since they're only looking for traffic violations or other crimes like burglaries. Though if we're not careful we'll actually have thought police and Junior Anti-Sex Leagues. :p

You know who we need harsher punishments for ... kiddie touchers.

Apparently in this day in age more and more people think it is alright to touch someone that is in no position to concent to any sexual contact whatsoever

This needs to come to an end this is fucking up the next generation. Sexual molestation leads to all KINDS of future problems from sexual addiction to committing the same acts on the next generation

I know this is an unpopular opinion; but it would also help if Citizens were allowed to carry guns and use them for self-protection...

True, but there are other methods of protecting yourself, like Martial Arts, or carrying around a bat or blunt object. Guns are not the only methods of self protection.

There are not that many cameras at all -- I am talking about networks of cameras that can cover practically every inch of residential space, not the joke of a programme that is currently in place. While they may not be that great a deterrent, they will prove quite useful in allowing us to aprehend criminals. If you have no criminals, you have no crime, despite the deterrent value of your anti-crime legislation.

Residential may be a problem, unless everyone gets privacy fences. And if we help out education and social welfare, we won't have criminals, therefore not need cameras to catch crime.

I know this is an unpopular opinion; but it would also help if Citizens were allowed to carry guns and use them for self-protection...

Good thing they are.

It's cameras. IN PUBLIC. I don't have a problem with cameras in public. PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU IN PUBLIC. Therefore, we can have our cameras but we're not being careful with them, we're not really helping crime at all, are we? And no, cameras in public won't really be much of a 1984 soceity (I'm finally readign the book! yay!), since they're only looking for traffic violations or other crimes like burglaries. Though if we're not careful we'll actually have thought police and Junior Anti-Sex Leagues. :p

If we put cameras up, then what will stop Gov. Co. from taking it one step futher? You know, cameras in private places. I mean hey, never know when someone might be committing a crime in a private place, we must watch that! Also, a camera is worthless when all criminals have to do is break it, or black it out with black paint.

Now putting up more street lights, now that I can support.

It all depends on WHAT the cameras are used for. If they are used for PHYSICALLY protecting people, I'm fine with it. But if they start using it to root out "subverise behavior" (I.E. wearing all black), THEN it's going to 1984-dom.

and that what will happen if we allow Gov. Co. to watch us.

You know who we need harsher punishments for ... kiddie touchers.

Apparently in this day in age more and more people think it is alright to touch someone that is in no position to concent to any sexual contact whatsoever

This needs to come to an end this is fucking up the next generation. Sexual molestation leads to all KINDS of future problems from sexual addiction to committing the same acts on the next generation

I actually find sexual molesters to be something of reproducing when they commit their crimes. They molest a few children. Later in their lives, some of them will commit the same crimes because of pyschological problems. The children they will molest will cause the same things, and before we know it there's a massive number of child molesters.

If we put cameras up, then what will stop Gov. Co. from taking it one step futher? You know, cameras in private places. I mean hey, never know when someone might be committing a crime in a private place, we must watch that! Also, a camera is worthless when all criminals have to do is break it, or black it out with black paint.

Now putting up more street lights, now that I can support.

Yes, more streelights would help. :) but cameras would actually catch criminals, because the camera would catch someone blacking it out and even hearing something... if someobody's actually watching the camera from a computer.

I know this is an unpopular opinion; but it would also help if Citizens were allowed to carry guns and use them for self-protection...

You already can.

I actually find sexual molesters to be something of reproducing when they commit their crimes. They molest a few children. Later in their lives, some of them will commit the same crimes because of pyschological problems. The children they will molest will cause the same things, and before we know it there's a massive number of child molesters.

Agreed (thats what I was trying to get at in the problem portion)

And if we help out education and social welfare, we won't have criminals, therefore not need cameras to catch crime.

Yeah, but until we convince congress to send more money to education and social benefits than to security, we'll have to live with cameras.

Almost every inch of London is covered by surveilance cameras and it hasn't even made a dent in crime.

Yes, more streelights would help. :) but cameras would actually catch criminals, because the camera would catch someone blacking it out and even hearing something... if someobody's actually watching the camera from a computer.

I just don't like the idea of more cameras. I don't like the idea of Gov. Co. being able to watch me go about my business. What if I wear something strange, like a costume for a costume party, whats to stop Gov. Co. from stopping me and asking me a few questions. I haven't done anything, but I do look "strange".

and that what will happen if we allow Gov. Co. to watch us.

True, but if it ever gets to that point we can always have an Orwellian or V-nian revolution. Of course, if people actually care to regulate their government rather than just sit on their asses and let things go by, then we won't have need for a revolution.

I have contemplated the problem and have decided that two prongs of attack are necessary. The first is adding cameras to monitor every square inch of public property -- it may be costly, but it is worth it. I don't know why so many people oppose such measures (guess what -- people can see you in public, so a camera should also be able to see you). It is definitely not an infringement on civil liberties -- nowhere in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to privacy. Anyway, once a crime is committed, the tapes can be reviewed to reveal who the perpetrator was. Simple, yet effective. I expect crime will plummet following a ratification of this measure.

No, no, and no. It sounds too much like Big Brother to me.

Furthermore, we need to deal more harshly with criminals. For some of the rougher elements, prison is a joke. We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off. If you steal, off with your hands. If you murder, you get murdered. Again, simple, but effective. The punishment should fit the crime and act as a sufficient deterrent to help reduce crime. We need to protect ordinary folks from the vultures who prey upon them and defend society against a criminal onslaught. We need to say that we will not tolerate crime any longer, and we should make criminals think twice before committing a transgression.

Never thought I'd say this, but I agree.

True, but if it ever gets to that point we can always have an Orwellian or V-nian revolution. Of course, if people actually care to regulate their government rather than just sit on their asses and let things go by, then we won't have need for a revolution.

The best way to regulate government is to not let it get too big, or get too much power over private citizens. The best way to do that is to keep the government small and de-centeralized.

Almost every inch of London is covered by surveilance cameras and it hasn't even made a dent in crime.

Yeah, but that's London. As far as I know, London has no where near as much crime as, say, New York or Detriot. Feel free to correct me if you wish.

Yeah, but that's London. As far as I know, London has no where near as much crime as, say, New York or Detriot. Feel free to correct me if you wish.

So if it had minimal effect on london crime (supposedly less crime) how is it going to do anything more then a minimal effect on the "more" crime city?

Crime in the US has sky-rocketed to almost absurd heights. Today, Mayor Bloomberg's car was stolen -- yes, the mayor's car. Does nobody have even one iota of respect for authority anymore? To what level has our society regressed in this modern day and age? If not even the mayor is safe from rampant crime, who is? The turpitude of criminals leaves one aghast -- they are practically becoming more depraved by the second. This immorality of our modern culture is deleterious to society as a whole -- no bounds are known to criminals; even walking down the street at night can be parlous. Thus, we need to install a programme to re-instate at least a semblance of law and order in our country.

I have contemplated the problem and have decided that two prongs of attack are necessary. The first is adding cameras to monitor every square inch of public property -- it may be costly, but it is worth it. I don't know why so many people oppose such measures (guess what -- people can see you in public, so a camera should also be able to see you). It is definitely not an infringement on civil liberties -- nowhere in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to privacy. Anyway, once a crime is committed, the tapes can be reviewed to reveal who the perpetrator was. Simple, yet effective. I expect crime will plummet following a ratification of this measure.

Furthermore, we need to deal more harshly with criminals. For some of the rougher elements, prison is a joke. We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off. If you steal, off with your hands. If you murder, you get murdered. Again, simple, but effective. The punishment should fit the crime and act as a sufficient deterrent to help reduce crime. We need to protect ordinary folks from the vultures who prey upon them and defend society against a criminal onslaught. We need to say that we will not tolerate crime any longer, and we should make criminals think twice before committing a transgression. I know this may sound a bit heartless, but after all, if we are willing to go into Iraq and Afghanistan over 3000 people, shouldn't we be willing to take less drastic measures for 10 times as many people?

MTAE... 100% predictable.

The best way to regulate government is to not let it get too big, or get too much power over private citizens. The best way to do that is to keep the government small and de-centeralized.

Amen.

What's to stop criminals from wearing masks when they know there are cameras every where? How can we efficiently run that many cameras? What's to stop their destruction in run-down areas that would cost billions in repairs to fix day after day?

Education and social welfare solve these problems. Archaic punishments and cameras will do nothing.

The best way to regulate government is to not let it get too big, or get too much power over private citizens. The best way to do that is to keep the government small and de-centeralized.

Without government, what will stop crime? Government = Security. Private citizens can't be counted on stoping crime that doesn't effect them. We need the government to provide security. And if that means security cameras, fine by me. But we must also prevent the government from abusing it's responsibility to provide security. That's where the problem comes up. Liberals don't want the government to provide protection. Conservatives want the government to provide unregulated protection. There's just not enough moderates to want the government to provide regulated protection.

Yeah, but that's London. As far as I know, London has no where near as much crime as, say, New York or Detriot. Feel free to correct me if you wish.

I wouldn't know, how much crime it has compared to American cities is not the point.

Education and social welfare solve these problems. Archaic punishments and cameras will do nothing.

As I said before, until we can convince congress to stop putting so much into security, we'll have to have security cameras.

I wouldn't know, how much crime it has compared to American cities is not the point.

The point is is that in a city with little crime, security measures obviously won't show any difference in crime statistics. But in a city with a lot of crime, it most probably would show a noticable difference.

Saying that poverty and lack of education and crime are related is a slap in the face to poor people and uneducated people everywhere.

I agree with most of what you say, but this isn't Saudi Arabia-we don't cut off thieves hands. That's taking it an inch too far.

Well, I'm not talking about a man who steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family -- it would be inhumane to chop his hands off. I'm talking about somebody who steals a big-screen TV; obviously, nobody's going to need that for survival. Also, it's my hope that the specter of having your hands sliced off will prevent you from theiving. My guess would be that the prevalence theft would be drastically reduced after such a measure would be passed. Who would want to steal if they knew they could get their hands removed for it? Not many people at all. Hopefully, the punishment would never need to be used because nobody would steal. The consequences would be too greivous for them.

Saying that poverty and lack of education and crime are related is a slap in the face to poor people and uneducated people everywhere.

? how so

Economics and education both do have a sigificant effect on crime

Without government, what will stop crime? Government = Security. Private citizens can't be counted on stoping crime that doesn't effect them. We need the government to provide security. And if that means security cameras, fine by me. But we must also prevent the government from abusing it's responsibility to provide security. That's where the problem comes up. Liberals don't want the government to provide protection. Conservatives want the government to provide unregulated protection. There's just not enough moderates to want the government to provide regulated protection.

That is true, I have no problem with government providing police force, to enforce the laws, but even that must be regulated. In my views, Government has two main function. It's to keep a strong standing militatry to protect us from invaders and threats outside our borders. The other one is to provide a strong yet regulated police force (that is held accountable by the people) to protects the rights that citizens have under the Consitution. Everything else is obligatory.

The point is is that in a city with little crime, security measures obviously won't show any difference in crime statistics. But in a city with a lot of crime, it most probably would show a noticable difference.

It does have a very high crime rate compared to most British cities and the rest of Europe. A noticable change would be shown if cameras did anything to deter crime.

Saying that poverty and lack of education and crime are related is a slap in the face to poor people and uneducated people everywhere.

Yes, because I often find college grads breaking into my car to steal my stereo.

Also, a camera is worthless when all criminals have to do is break it, or black it out with black paint.

If a camera can no longer adequately view the street because it is obscured with black paint or broken, the police will be contacted to monitor the situation and apprehend whoever defaced public property. It's not like somebody can smash 50 cameras without the cops noticing.

? how so

Economics and education both do have a sigificant effect on crime

It's complete and utterly baseless b.s. The only kind of people who commit crimes are people with no respect for the rule of law. If you educate an uneducated person who doesn't respect the law, what will you get? An educated shmuck who doesn't respect the law.

If a camera can no longer adequately view the street because it is obscured with black paint or broken, the police will be contacted to monitor the situation and apprehend whoever defaced public property. It's not like somebody can smash 50 cameras without the cops noticing.

What if they wore a mask?

Yes, because I often find college grads breaking into my car to steal my stereo.

Good. Now prove that lacking an education makes a person more likely to commit crime.

If a camera can no longer adequately view the street because it is obscured with black paint or broken, the police will be contacted to monitor the situation and apprehend whoever defaced public property. It's not like somebody can smash 50 cameras without the cops noticing.

I'm not about to report someone if they're gonna get their hands cut off for a fucking broken window.

Saying that poverty and lack of education and crime are related is a slap in the face to poor people and uneducated people everywhere.

No, it's a slap in the face of everyone who thinks education and social benefits are useless.

Good thing they are.

You already can.

I was talking about concealed carry, which is banned in many, many states.

What if they wore a mask?

Well, a camera would be there to record from whence they came. The police would then visit that house to make inquiries if they could not catch the criminal after he defaced a camera. Response time would be fast -- you smash a camera and -- bam -- the police are onto you. Why would you want to do that?

You could have cameras that had built-in poison dart guns that will shoot the criminals on any suspisious behavior!

If a camera can no longer adequately view the street because it is obscured with black paint or broken, the police will be contacted to monitor the situation and apprehend whoever defaced public property. It's not like somebody can smash 50 cameras without the cops noticing.

No, but they can deface 10, run away and finish the job elsewhere...

That is true, I have no problem with government providing police force, to enforce the laws, but even that must be regulated. In my views, Government has two main function. It's to keep a strong standing militatry to protect us from invaders and threats outside our borders. The other one is to provide a strong yet regulated police force (that is held accountable by the people) to protects the rights that citizens have under the Consitution. Everything else is obligatory.

Isn't that what I'm saying it should do? Provide a regulated police force?

If a camera can no longer adequately view the street because it is obscured with black paint or broken, the police will be contacted to monitor the situation and apprehend whoever defaced public property. It's not like somebody can smash 50 cameras without the cops noticing.

True, but it would be very easy, given the prevelance of these cameras, to break many of them from blind spots and from the dark.

Let's do an estimate:

1,000,000 cameras in downtown New York. We have to monitor every square inch, there's lots of New York, and we have to be close enough to see their faces.

45 cameras go out within the same 10 minute period. That's not unreasonable given how many cameras would have to be in a given city to monitor it.

That's alot of police.

I have contemplated the problem and have decided that two prongs of attack are necessary. The first is adding cameras to monitor every square inch of public property -- it may be costly, but it is worth it. I don't know why so many people oppose such measures (guess what -- people can see you in public, so a camera should also be able to see you). It is definitely not an infringement on civil liberties -- nowhere in the Bill of Rights are you guaranteed the right to privacy. Anyway, once a crime is committed, the tapes can be reviewed to reveal who the perpetrator was. Simple, yet effective. I expect crime will plummet following a ratification of this measure.
Good idea, actually. Although... do have any idea how many square inches of public property there are in America (and associated territories, etc)? We can't exactly afford to allocate a $10bil budget on security cameras... maybe a compromise? High-crime areas (like Detroit) can have the occasional camera on, say, light posts, or something? I think that might work.

Furthermore, we need to deal more harshly with criminals. For some of the rougher elements, prison is a joke. We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off.
Stay away from me... :(

Well, a camera would be there to record from whence they came. The police would then visit that house to make inquiries if they could not catch the criminal after he defaced a camera. Response time would be fast -- you smash a camera and -- bam -- the police are onto you. Why would you want to do that?

They could hide in a dark place, change outfit, take off the mask and walk out somewhere else and go about this business.

I'm not about to report someone if they're gonna get their hands cut off for a fucking broken window.

A broken window? If they smashed a camera, then they are obviously working to subvert the execution of the laws. They're an impediment to stopping crime. Now, they may not get their hands chopped off, but it needs to be a harsh punishment nonetheless.

You could have cameras that had built-in poison dart guns that will shoot the criminals on any suspisious behavior!

Oh come on. We aren't talking suspicsious behavior, we're talking criminal behavior. We won't send the dogs on someone who is loitering, we'll send the dogs on someone who is breaking into a shop after a long period of loitering.

Plus who the hell is going to watch all these camera's? The manpower needed to monitor every area if a major city would be enormous.

They could hide in a dark place, change outfit, take off the mask and walk out somewhere else and go about this business.

Yes, but the police would be able to catch them and proceed to unmask them. After all, the broken camera would alert the police, and there are many more cameras tracking where the criminal fled after smashing the camera. It would be difficult to get away with something like that, not to mention pointless.

Isn't that what I'm saying it should do? Provide a regulated police force?

Yes.

Plus who the hell is going to watch all these camera's? The manpower needed to monitor every area if a major city would be enormous.

Nobody. After a crime is committed, the tape where the crime occurred can be analysed.

I was talking about concealed carry, which is banned in many, many states.

Oh yes, perfectly smart. Allow people to conceal dangerous weapons! Allow people to walk into a crowded mall with a weapon which was previously concealed because the law allowed it, then allow them to open fire on everyone because no one noticed the gun!

Plus who the hell is going to watch all these camera's? The manpower needed to monitor every area if a major city would be enormous.

It would reduce unemployment to near 0%. ;)

Yes.

So you agree that we need cameras in order to assist a regulated police force?

Oh yes, perfectly smart. Allow people to conceal dangerous weapons! Allow people to walk into a crowded mall with a weapon which was previously concealed because the law allowed it, then allow them to open fire on everyone because no one noticed the gun!

You think criminals give a shit if it's legal or not to carry a concealed weapon? The kind of fuckazoids who would go into a crowded mall and blow people away would do it whether it was legal for them to carry their weapon or not. The only people "gun control" laws really hurt are law-abiding citizens.

Oh come on. We aren't talking suspicsious behavior, we're talking criminal behavior. We won't send the dogs on someone who is loitering, we'll send the dogs on someone who is breaking into a shop after a long period of loitering.

But it's more fun to shoot people who look funny.

Oh yes, perfectly smart. Allow people to conceal dangerous weapons! Allow people to walk into a crowded mall with a weapon which was previously concealed because the law allowed it, then allow them to open fire on everyone because no one noticed the gun!

if someone walks into a mall with a gun, with intent on shooting people, what difference does it make if its concealed or not? people will still die, that is unless they can fight back...

Good. Now prove that lacking an education makes a person more likely to commit crime.

Numerous studies document that criminal activity is positively related to unemployment and negatively related to educational attainment levels within given communities. We study this phenomenon in the context of a search-equilibrium model, in which agents choose between formal employment and pursuing crime-related activities (theft). Prior to their "occupational choices," agents undertake costly schooling, raising their productivity. Crime acts, in essence, as a tax on human capital by affecting the probability that a worker's earnings (possessions) are subsequently appropriated. There are multiple equilibria. High crime, low levels of educational attainment, long spells of unemployment, and poverty are correlated across them. Reprinted by permission of the publisher.

Abstract from a scholarly journal I found within moments of reading your post.

It's from the International Economic Review
ISSN: 0020-6598

Your turn.

Nobody. After a crime is committed, the tape where the crime occurred can be analysed.

And what if it was a violent crime? Like a murder? I thought the cameras were supposed to be constantly monitored in order to find an attack in the making, so that the police can be sent to stop it.

Nobody. After a crime is committed, the tape where the crime occurred can be analysed.

You said if a camera is damaged or out police would be sent to investigate. You need some one monitoring to realise when this happens.

A broken window? If they smashed a camera, then they are obviously working to subvert the execution of the laws. They're an impediment to stopping crime. Now, they may not get their hands chopped off, but it needs to be a harsh punishment nonetheless.

Camera, then - fine. Let me amend my earlier statement to reflect this:

I'm not about to report someone if they're gonna get their hands cut off for a fucking broken camera. And it'd serve whatever municipal/regional/federal boneheads - who frivolously wasted all that taxpayer money in the first place - right, anyway.

You think criminals give a shit if it's legal or not to carry a concealed weapon? The kind of fuckazoids who would go into a crowded mall and blow people away would do it whether it was legal for them to carry their weapon or not. The only people "gun control" laws really hurt are law-abiding citizens.

Fine. Let's allow concealed weapons. Don't blame me when the shooting rate sky-rockets...

Your turn.

*waves white flag*

Fine. Let's allow concealed weapons. Don't blame me when the shooting rate sky-rockets...

Like I said, the type of people who would go on shooting sprees don't give a fuck if concealed weapons are "allowed" or not.

Fine. Let's allow concealed weapons. Don't blame me when the shooting rate sky-rockets...

Yeah, it will sky-rocket; you will also see the number of dead criminals sky-rocket...

Like I said, the type of people who would go on shooting sprees don't give a fuck if concealed weapons are "allowed" or not.

The thing is is that more accidental shooting will occur because when a person has a gun, they have a tendency to shoot at anything that startles them. If a person doesn't know the person has a gun, they might startle the person without knowing the person had a gun, and they would get shot.

The thing is is that more accidental shooting will occur because when a person has a gun, they have a tendency to shoot at anything that startles them. If a person doesn't know the person has a gun, they might startle the person without knowing the person had a gun, and they would get shot.

Eh, point taken.

*waves that flag again*

The thing is is that more accidental shooting will occur because when a person has a gun, they have a tendency to shoot at anything that startles them. If a person doesn't know the person has a gun, they might startle the person without knowing the person had a gun, and they would get shot.

BS, Prove It.

And what if it was a violent crime? Like a murder? I thought the cameras were supposed to be constantly monitored in order to find an attack in the making, so that the police can be sent to stop it.

Ideally, they would all be monitored. However, I think we lack the man-power resources to accomplish that task, so we need to settle for the second-best solution. Perhaps the cameras will be able to record screams and then someone will view them when a scream is recorded, and that person may send the police -- that may allow getting the best of the both worlds.

You said if a camera is damaged or out police would be sent to investigate. You need some one monitoring to realise when this happens.

A camera will be able to realize if it is broken or obscured by itself. If it can no longer see anything, something is obscuring it, and a human will be summoned to determine if a criminal sprayed black paint on it or if a tall person with a big head is standing in front of it.

BS, Prove It.

It's in the human, nay the animal psyche. When we are startled we have a tendency to want to defend ourselves until we figure out what startled us. While we are startled, our brain takes a while to process the fact that it may just be a friend who startled us, so in that time we defend ourselves with the closest and most reliable defense device, the gun we are concealing.

Ideally, they would all be monitored. However, I think we lack the man-power resources to accomplish that task, so we need to settle for the second-best solution. Perhaps the cameras will be able to record screams and then someone will view them when a scream is recorded, and that person may send the police -- that may allow getting the best of the both worlds.

Technology isn't that far yet, the cameras would get massivly confused between shouting, singing, music, kids playing etc when it became really advanced of course there is the issue of the cameras being able to record conversations which although may be public area are still private.

we dont need hand for a hand punishments. what we do need is community workforce. get prisoners to work for us. litter control, park maintenance, repetitive jobs that need to be done and dont require much skill.

prisoners also dont need television, internet, etc..., they need to be given the essentials, what they need in order to continue eat, sleep, shower, and shit.

Technology isn't that far yet, the cameras would get massivly confused between shouting, singing, music, kids playing etc when it became really advanced of course there is the issue of the cameras being able to record conversations which although may be public area are still private.

Not really. It is extremely easy to make a camera sensitive to the pitch of a sound wave and its amplitude. It is much easier than you think for a computer to discern a scream from a shout or singing -- hell, a computer can even read your handwriting, and that's much more complex than deciding if you're screaming or playing.

a human will be summoned to determine if a criminal sprayed black paint on it or if a tall person with a big head is standing in front of it.

And so I'll just assume for the moment that any persons of clearly aggressive height who so willfully obscures a camera with his unduly large head will, no doubt, reasonably and justly have his interfering head immediately removed by the human summoned to the scene. In the interests of simplicity, and all that other crap you spouted in the OP.

we dont need hand for a hand punishments. what we do need is community workforce. get prisoners to work for us. litter control, park maintenance, repetitive jobs that need to be done and dont require much skill.

I think homeless people should get those jobs. That way, they can make a living and contribute to the community.

we dont need hand for a hand punishments. what we do need is community workforce. get prisoners to work for us. litter control, park maintenance, repetitive jobs that need to be done and dont require much skill.

prisoners also dont need television, internet, etc..., they need to be given the essentials, what they need in order to continue eat, sleep, shower, and shit.

Agreed. They should sleep in tents... tents with jus tenough room for 5 people. :)

And so I'll just assume for the moment that any persons of clearly aggressive height who so willfully obscures a camera with his unduly large head will, no doubt, reasonably and justly have his interfering head immediately removed by the human summoned to the scene. In the interests of simplicity, and all that other crap you spouted in the OP.

Lol! That's funny. :)

Not really. It is extremely easy to make a camera sensitive to the pitch of a sound wave and its amplitude. It is much easier than you think for a computer to discern a scream from a shout or singing -- hell, a computer can even read your handwriting, and that's much more complex than deciding if you're screaming or playing.

I've heard kids scream while playing water fights and such. I've also heard screaming coming from guys cars and their top of the range stereos. You didn't comment on my other point?

*waves white flag*

:D

criminals :mp5:

the blunkett solution

:confused: I agree with the first part. Big Brother should be allowed to watch us. That is, of course, only to keep us physically safe. Not "mentally" or "spiritually" safe.

I don't agree with the second. Violence only begets more violence. I don't care what people say about those kind of punishments detering crime. They only push people to become more crafty and devious in how they commit crimes. It's a fact: The harder the punishment, the harder it is to catch people. How to solve the problem? By, of course, stopping the root of the crime. Most people steal because it's the only way they know how to survive. :rolleyes: Therefore we must put more money into public education in order to teach people other ways to survive, like how to hold a job. A pyschopath on the loose? Maybe we should put more money into public healthcare so his pyschopathy could've been ended while he was a child.:confused: The list goes on. Put more money into funds for things that help the people and you won't need any money in trying to prevent crime.

This has been proven wrong time and time again.
Every place in America where liberal thinking on how to solve crime has been allowed to put itself to the test,those cities had massive crime rates.Washington.Detriot.New Orleans.Newark.:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: Crime corresponds with the Great Society programs.These places are wrecks.In order to solve crime,you need to allow everyone to have a gun.That way,criminals get shot.:sniper: People who are going to use the gun for crime arent going to worry themselves with gun laws,they will go just through illegal channels.Only lawabiding people will lose their weapons when gun laws are inacted,which is why gun laws dont solve crime.

:D

I'm not the smartest guy on the block, but I am smart enough to know when I've been pwned. ;)

*hands Bookislvakia a big cookie*

I've heard kids scream while playing water fights and such. I've also heard screaming coming from guys cars and their top of the range stereos. You didn't comment on my other point?

Yeah, so a human would be summoned to determine whether a crime is being committed or whether it is just a kid screaming. In reply to the second part of your post: a human would most likely not be listening to any conversations; only a computer. However, if you desire privacy, you should conduct private conversations on private property.

If you educate an uneducated person who doesn't respect the law, what will you get? An educated shmuck who doesn't respect the law.
Like a politician?

Bada-bing!

:confused:

This has been proven wrong time and time again.
Every place in America where liberal thinking on how to solve crime has been allowed to put itself to the test,those cities had massive crime rates.Washington.Detriot.New Orleans.Newark.:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: Crime corresponds with the Great Society programs.These places are wrecks.In order to solve crime,you need to allow everyone to have a gun.That way,criminals get shot.:sniper: People who are going to use the gun for crime arent going to worry themselves with gun laws,they will go just through illegal channels.Only lawabiding people will lose their weapons when gun laws are inacted,which is why gun laws dont solve crime.

Yes. Let everyone legally own AK-47's. Great idea.

I just thought of something how are you going to monitor every public area without inadvertly filming/listening to areas of private property? Its become quiete common for people to complain about new cameras being at a point where they can look through their windows.

I think homeless people should get those jobs. That way, they can make a living and contribute to the community.

Ahh, but liberals will continue to say "It's societies fault EVERY SINGLE LAST HOMELESS PERSON IS HOMELESS." Of course, it is societies fault that SOME people are homless, but liberals continue to say it's societies fault that everyone who is homeless is homeless. So therefore liberals will continue to push welfare onto every homeless person, even those who could easily work for a living.

I just thought of something how are you going to monitor every public area without inadvertly filming/listening to areas of private property? Its become quiete common for people to complain about new cameras being at a point where they can look through their windows.

Hmm... Of course crimes don't happen on private property as much as they do on public property! Sorry for being mistaken about that!:rolleyes:

Ahh, but liberals will continue to It's societies fault EVERY SINGLE LAST HOMELESS PERSON IS HOMELESS." Of course, it is societies fault that SOME people are homless, but liberals continue to say it's societies fault that everyone who is homeless is homeless. So therefore liberals will continue to push welfare onto every homeless person, even those who could easily work for a living.

I've never heard liberals say its "society's EVERY SINGLE LAST HOMELESS PERSON IS HOMELESS". I've never heard that argument before. How can you push welfare on someone? They either choose to claim it or they don't and get a job which is pretty difficult to do when you smell and look like a homeless person and have no address or telephone number.

Just to run the numbers.

The US contains 3,536,294 sq miles.

One of the best cameras needs a group of 9 to provide total coverage of a 1/2 square mile.

To cover the US, we would need 63,653,292 cameras.

Usually, 1 person can monitor 20 cameras at a time, so for one 8 hour shift, we need 3,182,665 people to watch them all.
So to provide 24/7 we need 9,547,995 people just to watch cameras, and this doesn't even cover the police needed to respond to any disturbence.

Mayhaps a wee bit silly, ne?

Hmm... Of course crimes don't happen on private property as much as they do on public property! Sorry for being mistaken about that!:rolleyes:

No, you're right lets get the cameras rigged up in your home, noone will be watching them, I promise.

I've never heard liberals say its "society's EVERY SINGLE LAST HOMELESS PERSON IS HOMELESS". I've never heard that argument before. How can you push welfare on someone? They either choose to claim it or they don't and get a job which is pretty difficult to do when you smell and look like a homeless person and have no address or telephone number.

Wow, you don't even know what your own wing is saying?

Also, I didn't mean "push" it on to the people, I mean supply it to them even if they don't need it.

And it was their fault that they didn't get a job and hold in the first place because they were too lazy. Of course, I'm not saying that applies to ALL homeless people, just a percentage.

No, you're right lets get the cameras rigged up in your home, noone will be watching them, I promise.

The point is is that if a camera is in your house and someone breaks into your house, the government will be able to find track that person down and punish him or her for their crimes much easier than without a camera. Even if they're wearing a mask, it would still severly improve the chances of finding the person.

So you agree that we need cameras in order to assist a regulated police force?

No, because that is giving the police too much power.

No, because that is giving the police too much power.

How is it giving too much power if they can easily track down those who commit crimes via the use of cameras?

Today, Mayor Bloomberg's car was stolen

That's the funniest goddamned thing I've heard all day.

<snip>

Wow. A little bloodthirsty. Did you get your vitamins this morning? They might help balance you out.

Seriously, crime is a problem, and cameras in public just may be the answer. Oh, hey, what if those cameras could actually execute the criminals when they witnessed a violent crime in progress? Like, use high-tech image recognition software to determine what's going on and when the software "sees" a crime occurring, we could fit the cameras with guns so they could shoot and execute the criminal immediately! How efficient! I wonder where we could get a highly complex mechanism that can identify crime in progress that we could put on the back end of a weapon capable of stopping the crime? Hmmm...

The point is is that if a camera is in your house and someone breaks into your house, the government will be able to find track that person down and punish him or her for their crimes much easier than without a camera. Even if they're wearing a mask, it would still severly improve the chances of finding the person.

But I wouldn't want a camera in my home, Naliitr. And most other people wouldn't, either. I know I'd monkeywrench any camera installed in my home against my wishes. In a heartbeat. And I'm pretty sure I could manage it myself, too.

No, because that is giving the police too much power.

lol, i kind of agree there is a line of just being too far (putting cameras in private homes, etc...) but some people say that everything is giving the police too much power. some people expect police to be like macgyver and be able to find and catch a criminal with a notepad, paper clip, and rubberband.

But I wouldn't want a camera in my home, Naliitr. And most other people wouldn't, either. I know I'd monkeywrench any camera installed in my home against my wishes. In a heartbeat. And I'm pretty sure I could manage it myself, too.

Ok, so you have to deal with people seeing your private life. But would you rather have the guy who stole your life's savings not caught?

Just to run the numbers...mayhaps a wee bit silly, ne?

I never said that a human should continuously monitor every camera -- only after a crime has been committed, when a camera has recorded a scream, or when a camera is not functioning properly. Also, I haven't suggested placing cameras in the desert or the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve -- only in residential areas.

I wonder where we could get a highly complex mechanism that can identify crime in progress that we could put on the back end of a weapon capable of stopping the crime? Hmmm...

Out of an Isaac Asimov novel?

Ok, so you have to deal with people seeing your private life. But would you rather have the guy who stole your life's savings not caught?

Thats right Dobbsworld leaves his entire life savings on top of his coffee table:rolleyes:

Most stuff in the home is not worth that much and if it is its usually be covered by home insurance.

Ok, so you have to deal with people seeing your private life. But would you rather have the guy who stole your life's savings not caught?

Pfft. You think I keep my money in an old coffee tin over the fridge?

And no, I wouldn't have to deal with people seeing my private life - 'cause like I already said, I'd monkeywrench the fucker.

So tell me, you liberals. What do you say when someone breaks into your house, steals your valuables, then makes off with it and is never caught? Oh, that's right. THE POLICE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH.

Out of an Isaac Asimov novel?

I actually believe that such a system is available right now.

I actually believe that such a system is available right now.

I know that you are referring to people. Unfortunately, we cannot put a police officer at every street corner -- we don't have the manpower. We must seek alternative means.

It's in the human, nay the animal psyche. When we are startled we have a tendency to want to defend ourselves until we figure out what startled us. While we are startled, our brain takes a while to process the fact that it may just be a friend who startled us, so in that time we defend ourselves with the closest and most reliable defense device, the gun we are concealing.

It takes about 15 seconds to grab, unholster, load, and cock a gun. Unless your a legendary western quick-draw, this won't be a problem.

So tell me, you liberals. What do you say when someone breaks into your house, steals your valuables, then makes off with it and is never caught? Oh, that's right. THE POLICE DIDN'T DO ENOUGH.

You're all messed up over property. I'm supposing you're onboard with the OP in thinking I should be happy if someone loses their hands if they take something that belongs to me?

Lemme tell ya, I'd fight tooth and nail to save someone from that fate - even if they made off with some object I assign value to.

It takes about 15 seconds to grab, unholster, load, and cock a gun. Unless your a legendary western quick-draw, this won't be a problem.

Well, let's consider the fact that most people would :

A) Keep their gun loaded

B) Keep it unholstered

So now all they have to do is grab it, cock it (most gun now in days either don't require cocking or are quite easy to cock. lol, cock), then fire.

You're all messed up over property. I'm supposing you're onboard with the OP in thinking I should be happy if someone loses their hands if they take something that belongs to me?

Lemme tell ya, I'd fight tooth and nail to save someone from that fate - even if they made off with some object I assign value to.

No, but I do think that all but uncruel and unusual (and security cameras aren't that unusual) means should be applied to stop crime. Perferably that would be providing more money to social benefits. But right now we have a government which perfers security, so we're stuck with security right now.

Well, let's consider the fact that most people would :

A) Keep their gun loaded

B) Keep it unholstered

So now all they have to do is grab it, cock it (most gun now in days either don't require cocking or are quite easy to cock. lol, cock), then fire.

1.) if they are startled enough so that their primitive self-preservation instinct, they probably won't have the presence of mind to think of, much less cock and aim, a gun.

2.) we haven't even mentioned the safety, which requires a steady, articulate hand to deactivate.

3.) even if it is unholstered it would still be in their pocket or elsewhere, the time it takes to reach and grab the weapon would last longer than this startled phase...

Ok, so you have to deal with people seeing your private life. But would you rather have the guy who stole your life's savings not caught?

It's terrifying enough to be seen by people in public. I used to get nauseous just from that. I could never sleep knowing that people could be watching me at any time?

I want to know how far this would go. People could break into houses through bathroom windows. Should we put cameras in bathrooms? If so, that would be terrible. If you go too far with the cameras, no one could ever use the toilet, take a shower, or change their clothes, unless they deactivated the cameras. That would be ridiculous.

And usually, people put their life savings in a bank or somewhere else, not at home, at least as far as I know.

1.) if they are startled enough so that their primitive self-preservation instinct, they probably won't have the presence of mind to think of, much less cock and aim, a gun.

2.) we haven't even mentioned the safety, which requires a steady, articulate hand to deactivate.

3.) even if it is unholstered it would still be in their pocket or elsewhere, the time it takes to reach and grab the weapon would last longer than this startled phase...

1. Once again, cocking (god damn that word is funny) isn't that hard any more, much less needable with some guns.

2. I don't think people would actually keep the gun on safety.

3. Oh yes. When you are startled you certainly don't have the adrenaline to quickly grab a gun out of your pocket and start firing madly because of your fear.

I want to know how far this would go. People could break into houses through bathroom windows. Should we put cameras in bathrooms? If so, that would be terrible. If you go too far with the cameras, no one could ever use the toilet, take a shower, or change their clothes, unless they deactivated the cameras. That would be ridiculous.

And usually, people put their life savings in a bank or somewhere else, not at home, at least as far as I know.

Once again, would you rather have a peeping tom security official looking at you or have your valuables stolen and not be able to be found? And I didn't exactly mean life savings, I just meant valuable items.

Once again, would you rather have a peeping tom security official looking at you or have your valuables stolen and not be able to be found? And I didn't exactly mean life savings, I just meant valuable items.

theft without a doubt.

I have insurance, where's my insurance that someone is not invading my privacy?

Once again, would you rather have a peeping tom security official looking at you or have your valuables stolen and not be able to be found? And I didn't exactly mean life savings, I just meant valuable items.

Valuable items can eventually be replaced. The fear of knowing that someone could be looking at you at any time and consequently not taking care of yourself (I'd rather not bathe than risk someone seeing me bathe) would be a lot harder to fix, and would last much longer.

Ok then, no cameras. But don't say the police didn't do enough when they don't find the guy who stole your stuff.

Of course, I don't know how easy it is to stop liberals from doing that. You know, saying the police didn't do enough to protect them when they told the police not to protect them.

1. Once again, cocking (god damn that word is funny) isn't that hard any more, much less needable with some guns.

2. I don't think people would actually keep the gun on safety.

3. Oh yes. When you are startled you certainly don't have the adrenaline to quickly grab a gun out of your pocket and start firing madly because of your fear.

1.) An uncocked gun with the slide-forward takes two hands to cock.

2.) they fucking should, anyone holstering an unsafetied weapon should lose their license, no ifs ands or buts.

3.) I don't think someone would go batshit crazy, I was picturing more of a "BOO!" "OMG!!!" type of thing, not lasting more than 3-4 seconds....

if their nervous enough to start discharging a weapon at random because of a shock, then they should not own a weapon...

Ok then, no cameras. But don't say the police didn't do enough when they don't find the guy who stole your stuff.

That's impossible. Police have been catching criminals for years. I will say the police don't do enough if they don't do their jobs, period.

saying the police didn't do enough to protect them when they told the police not to protect them.

I expect the police to protect me to the fullest extent possible that does not violate my rights. If they fail to do that, they are not doing enough.

This immorality of our modern culture is deleterious to society as a whole


We need to re-instate corporeal punishments; those who rape get their balls chopped off. If you steal, off with your hands. If you murder, you get murdered.

You got that right. :rolleyes:

1.) An uncocked gun with the slide-forward takes two hands to cock.

2.) they fucking should, anyone holstering an unsafetied weapon should lose their license, no ifs ands or buts.

3.) I don't think someone would go batshit crazy, I was picturing more of a "BOO!" "OMG!!!" type of thing, not lasting more than 3-4 seconds....

if their nervous enough to start discharging a weapon at random because of a shock, then they should not own a weapon...

1.) Haven't I said that most guns now-in-days require no cocking? And that someone who just wants a gun for protection would want a simple gun? (The last part I didn't say before, but I'm adding it now.

2.) Yes, but paranoid people (who would most likely shoot someone if startled) want to keep it off in order to be able to shoot at a moments notice.

2.) Yes, but paranoid people (who would most likely shoot someone if startled) want to keep it off in order to be able to shoot at a moments notice.

Paranoid people should not be given a concealed carry license.

That's impossible. Police have been catching criminals for years. I will say the police don't do enough if they don't do their jobs, period.



I expect the police to protect me to the fullest extent possible that does not violate my rights. If they fail to do that, they are not doing enough.

Well sorry. It's just that many a liberal I've seen say that the police don't do their jobs after they vote against police funding and security tactics.

So what more can they do? You just said that you expect them to protect you to the fullest without violating your rights. What if they do all they can do without violating your rights, but you and everyone else is still not protected? Would you still say "Oh. Well, I don't want the police to slightly infringe on my rights.", even though you knew you would stay unprotected? Would you then, when a crime affects you say "Oh. The police weren't doing enough? Well guess what. That's the world we live in today.

Like a politician?

Bada-bing!

Exactly. :D

Paranoid people should not be given a concealed carry license.

I just said they would be the most likely. There will still be people who do that, even if they aren't paranoid.

If a law is passed that allows the widespread possession and use of concealed weapons in the U.S, I'm moving to Canada.

Honestly, I don't trust every person I walk past in the street, or even know...

Would you feel safe if everyone you knew had a gun under their jacket?

I just said they would be the most likely. There will still be people who do that, even if they aren't paranoid.

and I just said paranoid people should not be given guns.............

I would hope that the testing required to acquire a license would weed these people out, I want rigorous fucking tests...

If a law is passed that allows the widespread possession and use of concealed weapons in the U.S, I'm moving to Canada.

Honestly, I don't trust every person I walk past in the street, or even know...

Would you feel safe if everyone you knew had a gun under their jacket?

Some of these liberals would, apparently.

I know that you are referring to people. Unfortunately, we cannot put a police officer at every street corner -- we don't have the manpower. We must seek alternative means.

Sure we can. You made the argument yourself that there are people watching you all the time in public. My contention is that EVERYONE could serve a law enforcement role. The training isn't really that difficult; creating a federal program whereby gun owners were either voluntarily or compulsorily trained would effectively be the same as increasing the police force.

and I just said paranoid people should not be given guns.............

I would hope that the testing required to acquire a license would weed these people out, I want rigorous fucking tests...

Well it better be trained psychologists and psychiatrists making these tests. I don't want anyone else besides them telling me if I'm paranoid enough to not own a gun. And they better be un-fucking-biased.

A) Keep their gun loaded

Perhaps, but it still takes enough time for you to ready, aim and fire to properly identify a potential threat, and if that's not the case then why do even the police have weapons? They're humans, too.

B) Keep it unholstered

This is just preposterous. Could you imagine walking around all the time with one hand occupied by a loaded firearm? Most people don't walk around with one hand occupied right now unless there's some pressing need for it (walk with a cane, umbrella, food, etc.)

Well sorry. It's just that many a liberal I've seen say that the police don't do their jobs after they vote against police funding and security tactics.

Show me one.

[/QUOTE]So what more can they do? You just said that you expect them to protect you to the fullest without violating your rights. [/QUOTE]

Nothing, and I accept that.

What if they do all they can do without violating your rights, but you and everyone else is still not protected? Would you still say "Oh. Well, I don't want the police to slightly infringe on my rights.", even though you knew you would stay unprotected?

Yes, yes I would.

What exactly do you expect here? for me to say "I never realized that if I didn't have a camera in my house that the government put there then that might mean I could get robbed and the police won't find the guy!!!111onoeoneone!!111 What was I thinking??? I thought the police were all powerful!!!!!111!!!1! If I don't let them violate my privacy there's a chance a crime against me might not get solved, please, big brother, SAVE ME!!!!!!"

I am perhaps not quite as stupid as you seem to think I am.

Perhaps, but it still takes enough time for you to ready, aim and fire to properly identify a potential threat, and if that's not the case then why do even the police have weapons? They're humans, too.



This is just preposterous. Could you imagine walking around all the time with one hand occupied by a loaded firearm? Most people don't walk around with one hand occupied right now unless there's some pressing need for it (walk with a cane, umbrella, food, etc.)

Oh yes, in their startled-ness they will actually care to tell whether or not the person is a threat, along with aiming it. And police have training to keep them from firing off like maniacs.

It's called pockets.

Hey Guys I have an idea to stop crime altogether in the US! ;)

The Governent should shut down/cut funds the liberal media telling people to kill cops and disrespect authority, ect. Next martial law should be delcared and those who are known criminals that appear in records at two times or more should be executed...fool proof. :D That is only to deal with the critical situation. Then set up a new system where only people worthy,intelligent, smart,expeirenced enough can vote, crime is discouraged by the media, and do something about Americans hating intelligence, I mean the US is the only country in which the intelligent are bullied for just that! And ban ammendments that criminals constantly hide behind to get away with their crimes. After the generation is respectable again then it could become a peaceful democray happy ending :)

I haven't read all ten pages, my eyes aren't up to starting at ther screen that long, but in reference to the OP, last I heard, and I thought, according to various agencies who keep track of this stuff, crime rates have been falling for the past few years.

Di I sleep more than 5 hours last night afterall?

Oh yes, in their startled-ness they will actually care to tell whether or not the person is a threat, along with aiming it. And police have training to keep them from firing off like maniacs.

Yes, most responsible, trained gun owners do. And the "training" the police have is honestly not very intense or complex. It is not unfeasible that the training could be made more available to most citizens who want to own guns.

It's called pockets.

Keeping a gun in your pocket, assuming you have one small enough to even fit in there, or stuck in the waistband of your pants makes it even more difficult to deploy than if you've got it in a holster. That's part of why people invented and continue to employ the use of holsters.

1.) Haven't I said that most guns now-in-days require no cocking? And that someone who just wants a gun for protection would want a simple gun? (The last part I didn't say before, but I'm adding it now.

This simply isn't true. There are some that don't, but most of those are military models and are a real bitch to get ahold of. And of those that don't require re-cocking between each shot, you'd have to have to cock it and have a bullet in the chamber to be able to just grab and fire. Carrying around a weapon with a bullet already in the chamber is a rather grand way of blowing your own foot/knee/testicle off. Darwin is gonna win this one.

2.) Yes, but paranoid people (who would most likely shoot someone if startled) want to keep it off in order to be able to shoot at a moments notice.

Sure. And paranoid people will also have bullets chambered and will have significant amounts of lead embedded in their lower bodies. You seem like this sort of person. Perhaps that is why you don't trust other people: becaue you recognize that you yourself cannot be trusted. If that's the case, I agree that you shouldn't own a gun, ever, until you learn to calm down. But please don't restrict the ability of those of us who aren't that paranoid and who are properly trained from owning and deploying them. You never know, it just might be my gun that saves your life or the life of a loved one someday.

Would you feel safe if everyone you knew had a gun under their jacket?

Absolutely, if I believed that the only reason they were going to deploy that weapon would be in the course of the deterrence of violent crime. That's why I don't have (too many) problems with the police having guns. They're using them for what they're supposed to be used for.

As it is, I still have to worry that the unknown guy I see on the street is a criminal and that he might have a weapon and intent to do me harm, even on a crowded street, though in such an environment the risk is, obviously, considerably less. In the "all armed" scenario, it's an almost sure bet that this guy and that guy and that guy and that guy, not to mention myself, are all armed. It is extremely unlikely that we are all criminals, and if the guy who happens to be a criminal initiates a confrontation, he's going to have to think about not only my gun, but that guy's gun and the other guy's gun and cetera. He can't get us all, and his chances of survival, much less of completing a profitable criminal activity, are significantly reduced. Crooks may be stupid, but they're not that stupid.

You think criminals give a shit if it's legal or not to carry a concealed weapon? The kind of fuckazoids who would go into a crowded mall and blow people away would do it whether it was legal for them to carry their weapon or not. The only people "gun control" laws really hurt are law-abiding citizens.

Sure and lots of people will die because the police could not arrest the guy before he actually started shooting...
Strangely enough we in countries with "gun control laws" face a much lower risk of being shot than the average U.S. citizen.

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)

Sure and lots of people will die because the police could not arrest the guy before he actually started shooting...
Strangely enough we in countries with "gun control laws" face a much lower risk of being shot than the average U.S. citizen.

Murders with firearms (per capita) by country (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita)


Even though numerous of those countries w/ strict "gun control" have higher crime/murder rates than the US and some w/ more firearms/capita have lower crime/murder rates. Go peddle your causality elsewhere.

In my opinion, some of the ideas i've seen aren't that bad, but you'd have to be naive to think that camera's and a few extra cops are going to put a dent in crime. Take Durham,NC for an example, its not a huge metropolis like the cities mentioned earlier (NYC, London, L.A. etc.), but crime there runs rampant, despite a well trained police force and the cameras they've been setting up near downtown and Hargrave Street. The criminals just shoot the cameras out with silenced glocks or brownings from the camera's blind spot, and most of the criminals are able to get their hands on better weaponry than the local police and sheriff's department. Also, on the topic of getting more police officers, in Durham, NC, 34 Police officers will killed in duty only last year. Most officers even ignore some calls nowdays due to this if they are in infamous areas like Hargrave and Walnut Terrace. And on another note, i actually live in a rural community west of Durham, but as far as taking away citizen's guns, that would only create far more problems. From personal experience, my gun saved my life and my family's. I live about 15 miles from the nearest police station and if i had just called the police instead of fire a warning shot toward the guy, i would have been dead (you see, he shot the lock off my door. Thats how i knew he was armed). Generally, it takes the police about 20-25 mins to get to my place, so if you took citizens guns, what would happen to the people in rural communites that have their houses broken into?