DC is right. Handguns should be banned.

[PaulD]

ugh.

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/video/15177086/index.html?source=CNN

 

[doobie]

Did he have his glove with him?

 

[bostonasphalt2]

what wouldve been appropriate and awesome was if the woman pulled out a firearm and put the guy out.

Effing despicable that a place actually wants to BAN firearms

 

[drgrant]

Welcome to Washington DC- the capital of what is supposed to
be the freest nation in the world- where you will get arrested for
chewing gum on the subway and denied any capability to defend
yourself.

It really is a crying shame when you think about it...

-Mike

 

[depicts]

America was once a beautiful place.

I've missed it.

 

[dwarven1]

I see how useful that surveillance camera was. It definitely played a role there.

Now all they have to do is IDENTIFY the bastard so that they can try to find him.

 

[Joe R.]

It's why I laugh at the signs that say " The surveillence ( sp ) camera is there for your protection." No it's not - is there a rifle that gonna shoot when they see someone doing something bad? It's there just to make the cops have something to look at after they put your body into the coroner's van.

Joe R>

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

It's why I laugh at the signs that say " The surveillence ( sp ) camera is there for your protection." No it's not - is there a rifle that gonna shoot when they see someone doing something bad? It's there just to make the cops have something to look at after they put your body into the coroner's van.

Joe R>

Amen!!

 

[Bruce for NH State Rep]

I have to disagree. Without the cameras capturing this attack, the cops woudl have diddley-squat to go on, other than what the victim could recall. I would think a camera has a better memory that someone being whacked in the coconut repeatedly with a bat. Had the victim been killed, the cops would only have the corpse for evidence.

That said...

The distinction we need to look at is privately owned and operated cameras vs. government-controlled surveillance. No one would advocate preventing banks and businesses from putting up cameras on their own property, and these cameras quite frequently capture images of suspects that can be used as evidence to prosecute them.

Were the cameras in that story controlled by the property owners, or the city?

I'm 100% in favor of allowing property owners to put up as many cameras on their property as they want. Granting the same power to a bunch of busybody politicians? Yeah, I don't think so.

But, yeah, the idea of a camera "protecting" you is pure folly.

 

[stoneypete]

Obviously Baseball bats and delivery trucks need to be banned too. With out these items this man would never have considered his evil plan.

 

[gene]

You know what will happen next!
The camera's are going to start dissapearing because some drug addict, low life will be selling them for their next fix.

 

[dwarven1]

 

[jhblaze1]

Has anyone in Britain actually ever read Brave New World. Jesus, that sign is creepy!