[clue-talk] surveillance cameras

[David L. Willson]

The theory hangs on "most", not "all".  If I give one hundred people
guns, and 99 of them are cool, normal, life-respectin' folks, and one is
a rage-filled, hate-mongerin' looney, Mr. Rage, unless he's also Mr.
Stupid, will probably opt to hold the violent expression of his opinion
in check.  That will allow the rest of us to think he's a pretty OK guy,
and contribute to his recovery by buying him a Coke or something.  On
the off-chance that he is Mr. Fulla-Rage-AND-too-stupid-to-care, he
might shoot somebody, and then one of the normal folks that he didn't
shoot will shoot him back, minimizing the damage.  Unfortunately, in our
soft, pink, peace-loving society, a typical group of 100 of us has no
way to defend itself, and he got his gun illegally, so Mr. FRAtstc will
shoot everyone in sight until even his ineffective conscience is pricked
to life, and then he'll shoot himself, and we'll all cry about it.

I think the assumption that "most" people would hate to use a gun to
harm another person, ~any~ other person, even a jerk like Mr. Rage, is
accurate.  I wonder if I could find some statistics on it...

On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 12:46 -0600, Tony McDowell wrote:
> In principle, I agree with you wholeheartedly.  However, you
> implicitly make the assumption that everyone in the country/world will
> own and use guns respectfully and respsonsibly.  As we have all seen
> in our daily lives that's just not the case.
>  
> -tony
> 
>  
> On 9/21/07, David L. Willson <DLWillson at thegeek.nu> wrote: 
>         Y'know what ~does~ reduce crime?  Guns.
>         
>         Normal folks knowing how to use guns, normal folks owning
>         guns, and 
>         making those simple facts about the normal folks common
>         knowledge so
>         that when some heretofore normal person goes "abby normal",
>         they think
>         two or three times about the risk inherent in committing a
>         crime. 
>         
>         http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm
>         http://newsbusters.org/node/12267
>         
>         Guns, not cameras.  Guns in the hands of the those who respect
>         life. 
>         
>         :-)
>         
>         On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 17:33 +0000, dennisjperkins at comcast.net
>         wrote:
>         > There was an article yesterday saying that the surveillance
>         cameras in England have not reduced crime.  No surprise
>         there. 
>         >
>         > I'm guessing that the cameras are supposed to catch people
>         running red lights.  Maybe they can identify the car, but can
>         they identify the driver reliably?  It's one thing to be
>         handed a ticket by an officer, but another to be identified by
>         a camera.  Can it identify people who look very similar?  How
>         about identical twins? 
>         >
>         >  -------------- Original message ----------------------
>         > From: rex evans <rexfordevans at yahoo.com>
>         > > I have noticed increasing use of cameras and 
>         > > I think their ability to see details will also
>         > > increase.
>         > >
>         > > Surveillance at work place started with a
>         > > few cameras in critical areas, for example
>         > > to provide external view entry/exits, loading dock. 
>         > >
>         > > More cameras in parking lots for security from
>         > > muggers,
>         > > rapists, kidnappers.
>         > >
>         > > Some personal items got stolen at work, so that was
>         > > an excuse to put cameras in all hallways. 
>         > >
>         > > At one telephone company, I noticed an audible click
>         > > when I neared one of the exits. It was some sort of
>         > > alert Sensor, that could only be heard on a quiet day.
>         > > Of course there were cameras at every exit also. 
>         > >
>         > > In this same company, I became friends with a security
>         > > guard.
>         > > His previous job was in the company's "listening
>         > > room";
>         > > they could and did monitor phone lines; their 
>         > > favorites
>         > > were conference room phones.
>         > >
>         > > In one cubical, they installed a clock with hidden
>         > > camera, because they had a computer (server) in the
>         > > cubical. 
>         > >
>         > > In future, insurance companies may require that each
>         > > building must have surveillance of all internal areas
>         > > and parking lots.
>         > >
>         > > I just heard Peter Boyles on radio say that Denver 
>         > > Police are video recording at the entrance to
>         > > motorcycle events. These are mainstream events, not
>         > > some Hell's Angels gatherings.
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         > > 
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         > >
>         ________________________________________________________________________________
>         > > ____
>         > > Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
>         > > http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/
>         > > _______________________________________________
>         > > clue-talk mailing list
>         > > clue-talk at cluedenver.org
>         > > http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________ 
>         > clue-talk mailing list
>         > clue-talk at cluedenver.org
>         > http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
>         
>         _______________________________________________
>         clue-talk mailing list
>         clue-talk at cluedenver.org
>         http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk
> 
> _______________________________________________
> clue-talk mailing list
> clue-talk at cluedenver.org
> http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk