Security Cameras in NY Streets to Deter Crime... (low crime, high schools)

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by justfarr1030

Did you know that TWICE as many people die each year from peanut allergies? Another interesting FACT, the leading cause of death in Americans is Coronary Heart Disease which kills roughly 450,000 Americans each year. In 2007, the governmental allocation of funds on this issue was 3 billion. Therefore, this means that in just 2007 the government spent 54 TIMES the amount on preventing terroism than it did on preventing a disease that kills 6,600 times more people annualy than terroism does.

1. Individuals can choose to not eat peanuts.

2. Individuals can via diet, exercise, hygiene, etc., work on their own in preventing heart disease.

3. Tell me - can I work on my own to prevent Bin Laden from attacking me?

[SuperMario]

Originally Posted by A_Better_Bronx_2morrow

You said it yourself...cameras deter criminals. In your case they moved AWAY from the area that had cameras, therefore that qualifies it as a successful deterant.

You missed the point. The drug dealers are still on all those blocks, plus the ones on the west. So all the camera did was spread the problems.

[justfarr1030]

Originally Posted by Miles

1. Individuals can choose to not eat peanuts.

2. Individuals can via diet, exercise, hygiene, etc., work on their own in preventing heart disease.

3. Tell me - can I work on my own to prevent Bin Laden from attacking me?

This was the best you could come up with? Not good enough my friend (I'm dissapointed in you Miles, I've seen much better from you in our previous debates). So are you saying you're ok with the government spending countless hundreds of billions of dollars a year to fight something that kills on average 70 americans a year (once again, EXTREMELY GENEROUS)as opposed to spending that money on reseach and development of a vaccine that prevents a disease that IS KNOWN TO KILL 450,000 AMERICANS A YEAR? I can pretty much pick something out of thin air that you have a better chance of dying from and I would be statistically right (here I go):

Car Accident
Cancer
Obesity
Plane Crash
......Armed Robbery...the list goes on.

I know it's hard to dispute the facts I laid down so it's ok, most people can't. The truth is that we are being lied to and manipulted and it's time for us to WAKE UP before it's too late. And by the way, I'm STILL waiting for someone to LOGICALLY debunk my statements with FACTS and not just mere political/moral/religious babble.

[krichton]

This is no different then hiring more cops to walk the beat. You're not really solving the problem of why crimes exists in the first place. Crime might go down a bit but not alot. Random violence will still occur because no one actually thinks they will get caught. Mod cut: not necessary Nothing is solved.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by justfarr1030

This was the best you could come up with? Not good enough my friend (I'm dissapointed in you Miles, I've seen much better from you in our previous debates). So are you saying you're ok with the government spending countless hundreds of billions of dollars a year to fight something that kills on average 70 americans a year (once again, EXTREMELY GENEROUS)as opposed to spending that money on reseach and development of a vaccine that prevents a disease that IS KNOWN TO KILL 450,000 AMERICANS A YEAR? I can pretty much pick something out of thin air that you have a better chance of dying from and I would be statistically right (here I go):

Car Accident
Cancer
Obesity
Plane Crash
......Armed Robbery...the list goes on.

I know it's hard to dispute the facts I laid down so it's ok, most people can't. The truth is that we are being lied to and manipulted and it's time for us to WAKE UP before it's too late. And by the way, I'm STILL waiting for someone to LOGICALLY debunk my statements with FACTS and not just mere political/moral/religious babble.

All the bold types which indicate your shouting uncontrollably do not dispute the fact that our government needs to spend money tp PREVENT catastrophes which would make 9/11 miniscule.

I suppose that you are expecting your much revered Obama to spend less on terrorism.

[Moderate Guy]

The issue of cameras on streets has brought up the larger issue of "invasion of rights of citizens" in combating criminality in the war on terrorism. Much mention has been made of the Geneva Convention, Guantanamo Bay, etc.

While we as Americans generally disdain mistreatment of criminals much more so than other countries do, one has to be careful not to follow the dictates of the ACLU crowd.

When dealing with hardened criminals hell bent on destroying all that we hold dear, I'm afraid that coffee, donuts, a warm blanket, a cuddly teddy bear and a bedtime story about telling us nice people about the Big, Bad Bin Laden just will not suffice.

[dixiecupdrinking]

Originally Posted by Miles

The issue of cameras on streets has brought up the larger issue of "invasion of rights of citizens" in combating criminality in the war on terrorism. Much mention has been made of the Geneva Convention, Guantanamo Bay, etc.

While we as Americans generally disdain mistreatment of criminals much more so than other countries do, one has to be careful not to follow the dictates of the ACLU crowd.

When dealing with hardened criminals hell bent on destroying all that we hold dear, I'm afraid that coffee, donuts, a warm blanket, a cuddly teddy bear and a bedtime story about telling us nice people about the Big, Bad Bin Laden just will not suffice.

But the problem with the cameras isn't the "mistreatment of criminals" -- it's the erosion of privacy of the vast majority of citizens who are not criminals.

[Huckleberry3911948]

they gotem already they dont deter crime here. they deter if you punish criminals. otherwise you get a nice photo album. even with pretty photos too many people lawyer up and beat it. average criminal case running more than a million bucks and even with conviction, many get off with little or no punishment early release, how long this been goin on sing it.

[Moderate Guy]

Originally Posted by dixiecupdrinking

But the problem with the cameras isn't the "mistreatment of criminals" -- it's the erosion of privacy of the vast majority of citizens who are not criminals.

As I argued repeatedly, it's my firm opinion that the interpretation that the Constitution gives us uninhibited personal rights at the expense of society in general has never been recognized as practical from the inception of our country. We do a constant tradeoff for the good of all.

I'm afraid that I am unable to convince you if you aren't capable of realizing that, and I will withdraw further debate with you as it would be fruitless.

[StrugglingMusician91]

I've got to say im completely against the cameras. I really think its outlandish. I can see, however, where those who are advocates for it could get their ammunition from. Safety is a major issue in America, I am not denying that, but I think its a matter of "well whats next?" People on the top have a very clever way of slowly denying us our rights. I don't know if anyone saw Keith Olbermann interview Russel Tice, a former analyst at the National Security Agency. Well he came out and said that the government, who came out before saying they would only use their technology for catching terrorists, used it to tap the phones of journalist and average Americans. That is unconstitutional. Security cameras for catching criminals...love it. Great idea. Security Cameras making way for other forms of spying.....unconstitutional and completely absurd. I believe Benjamin Franklin said it best, "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."