Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Action put off on guns-in-parks issue [View all]Starboard Tack
(11,181 posts)52. One person can monitor a lot of input.
If a scanner picks up what looks like a weapon, the individual can be identified visually and appropriate action taken by local LE. It really isn't that complicated, expensive or difficult. If there are no illegal guns in the park, then there is no need for anyone to introduce a legal one.
When you talk of "unfounded fears" I think that would be in the mind of the one who feels the need to be armed, but by eliminating all guns in the zone, the issue would become moot.
There is no civil or constitutional right to carry concealed weapons anywhere, let alone in an urban park.
Why are you trying to find reasons not to improve public safety?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
95 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
It looks like the idea to to make sure honest citizens do no have firearms in a park...
spin
Jan 2012
#2
I find it offensive that you put individual gun carrying above public safety.
Starboard Tack
Jan 2012
#31
My desire is to live in a world where nobody carries handguns in public.
Starboard Tack
Jan 2012
#57
Nice one. With distortions like that, I assume you don't belief in karma.
Starboard Tack
Jan 2012
#56
If it saves lives, we can hire every other person to be a cop and follow the other people around..
X_Digger
Jan 2012
#16
I think you're far too optimistic about this technology, and too cavalier about the BoR
petronius
Jan 2012
#30
"No, but [criminals] should." They will be blinded by the glare of your logic...
SteveW
Jan 2012
#88
If it's not firearms it'll just be something else. So really, a better solution would
petronius
Jan 2012
#92
And how is that surveillance going to stop someone from taking a gun into a park?
rl6214
Jan 2012
#80
So you support a surveillance state? Patriot Act didn't go far enough for you? nt
hack89
Jan 2012
#43
Which means that in public places citizens are been surveilled by the government
hack89
Jan 2012
#65
Yesterday's SCOTUS decision must have caused your authoritarian streak to squeak, eh?
X_Digger
Jan 2012
#74
"secure in their persons" - ring a bell? -- fuck that anti-4th amendment noise.
X_Digger
Jan 2012
#81
If you can not see the difference between a camera (and I oppose those, by the way)....
PavePusher
Jan 2012
#93
How many crimes do you think get committed in those parks now? Not many and certainly not enough
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#44
Oh, God, the "we can't afford it" arguement . . . . . .so often used by right wing obstructionists.
Hoyt
Jan 2012
#45