rise up Rochester - Latest Comments in Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

sousa22 — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 17:50:41 -0000

Alicia i agree. Im from Germany and here it is the same

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

riseuprochester — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:42:17 -0000

I just realized that the bank that was robbed on Monroe yesterday, besides having dozens of it's own cameras, had TWO Rochester surveillance cameras at that intersection which could see the entrance of the bank.

Perhaps someone can explain to me how they helped to deter crime in this situation?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:01:11 -0000

Yes I would, maybe I'll even write about this whole right to bear arms issue.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:44:29 -0000

Additionally, do you understand though, that even if we had a "list" of people that were the only ones who could own a gun, that the people who are committing crimes with guns are still going to have access to the same gun supply that they had before, as most of the people committing crimes with guns are obtaining those guns illegally. So, like I stated before, the criminals will still have their guns, but us law abiding citizens will not have the protection we deserve/desire.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ethan — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:43:26 -0000

I think that since this discussion evolved out of an article about cameras on city streets perhaps it is deserving of its own article. Or perhaps a pair of articles from opposing view points?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ethan — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:38:52 -0000

"No offense, but do you really think average citizens, armed with whatever would stand a chance?"

It doesn't much matter if the people would win or not but you do pose an interesting question. The way I see it, much of the military would refuse to fight and even turn against those who did. If the people do have access to guns and know how to use them, I think they certainly would be capable of putting up a fight. Just look at the problems our military has faced in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

riseuprochester — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:32:35 -0000

Nicole, would you like to become a contributor on the site? You could start posting articles almost immediately. I believe Ryan is considering becoming one.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ethan — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:31:59 -0000

"I only really endorse gun ownership for those who have strong incentives to keep me alive: police, store owners, military personnel."

You didn't list yourself here. Why is that? Don't you have a strong incentive to keep yourself alive?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:30:02 -0000

There are several layers to my belief: personal protection at a community level and protection from the government in the event that I needed it. Unlikely or not, if history teaches us anything...

But you're right, since YOU feel personally incapable of protecting yourself, the right to own a gun should be taken away from the rest of us and only given to a list of people deemed deserving of the right.

Unlike you, I do not want to place my fate in the hands of others. This is a right that our founding fathers believed we should have and I am in full agreement with them.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

riseuprochester — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:10:55 -0000

Also, the police, store owners and military did a great job of protecting the "people" in WWII Germany, USSR, US, etc.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

riseuprochester — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:09:00 -0000

You should acknowledge that you disagree with the founding fathers. They were clear with their intentions. No one doubted why the 2nd Amendment was included at the time.

http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm

http://cap-n-ball.com/fathers.htm

http://www.fdrs.org/founding_fathers_and_gun_co...

There really is no debate here as their intentions are well documented. George Washington even stated that sports were a waste of time and young men should be taught how to shoot a gun instead.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 17:03:10 -0000

So you're positing that in the unlikely even the US Army were to start persecuting American citizens, that you think American citizens would be able to defend themselves and win?

Our country has the second largest active military in the world (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_...) and is probably the best funded, best trained army in the world. No offense, but do you really think average citizens, armed with whatever would stand a chance?

I fully support gun ownership by small at risk businesses. If smaller, vulnerable stores aren't armed I think they should be. Why? I only really endorse gun ownership for those who have strong incentives to keep me alive: police, store owners, military personnel. None of these people could benefit by killing me.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ethan — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:58:54 -0000

Yes, yes. You make a very good point here Daisy, but I must disagree.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:37:55 -0000

I'm sure when they see your comment about the Boston Creme Pie and wiping up someone's blood off the floor they will thoroughly understand.

The arguments against your opinion were clear and consise, then your comments became sick and twisted - there is no need to continue a debate with someone who, once unable to continue their side of the argument, responds with nasty semantics. It appears all the contributors welcome debates, just not the kind of childish debates you want to have.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ethan — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 16:22:16 -0000

I don't think they were removed for being different than that of the moderator. I believe they were removed for the violence they were advocating. Not that what I think matters anyway, but your comments distract from real debate as well.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

riseuprochester — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:36:11 -0000

Not to mention a huge run-around and wait periods that can extend to over a year. The justification for a wait period (I've been told) is to allow for a cooling down period. Hypothetically, someone wants to commit a crime with a gun, but since they have to wait a year to obtain one legally, they become discouraged and think better of it. However, the reverse is also true. Someone could become concerned for their own safety and wish to obtain a handgun to defend themselves. The waiting period prevents this person from protecting themselves with a gun for over a year, giving anyone that wishes to do that person harm ample time to hurt them.

Going with the "people kill people" vs. "guns kill people" theory, I'd say it's the criminals that are advantaged in this type of system.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ethan — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:25:29 -0000

I'd also like to point out that it is the prerogative of an establishment to decide if weapons are allowed on premises. That is a part of private property law.

I believe a better system than requiring permits for hand guns would be a database of those people deemed not to have a right to a hand gun due to previous violations of law or diagnosed mental illness. Although this system, like the current one, would not completely prevent guns from being obtained by criminals, it would certainly make it easier to exercise your right to own a firearm and protect yourself. I think it is ridiculous that it costs over $100 just to exercise your right in NY.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

riseuprochester — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:13:12 -0000

Thank you, Nicole. That's all I've ever been trying to say here.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

nicolesharp0921 — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 18:10:39 -0000

Ryan,

I'm trying to understand you; is it your belief that we should not have the right to own firearms?

I can assure you that if our right to firearms is taken away, those committing crimes with these firearms will still have firearms; it will be those of us who are law abiding citizens that will no longer have the option to protect ourselves. One of the first things that Hitler did when he rose to power was take away the people's right to own firearms. Therefore, he took away the people's right to protect themselves. They had to rely on the Nazi regime to protect them, and as history shows us, that did not work out well for a lot of people. This is definitely not the direction I want our society to go in.

Why do you believe that most store owners are armed? I am a social worker within the community of Rochester and can say with much confidence that most store owners are not armed.

It appears that your mentality is of the "guns kill people" belief. I, on the other hand, am of the "people kill people" belief. There are a variety of ways that a "delinquent or mentally unstable" person could hurt someone, having the right to firearms as a society does make that any more likely.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ethan — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:26:46 -0000

If that's the case I don't fault you at all for leaving. You should always leave a place you don't feel safe, but if he had threatened your life before you could leave wouldn't you want to be able to defend yourself.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ethan — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 17:24:53 -0000

No, my argument does not fall apart. If a drunk pulls a gun and everyone else is armed, the drunk is stopped before he can harm anyone. But I can totally agree that I wouldn't want to live in a country were everyone is waving a gun around threatening everyone. I just want to retain the right to defend myself.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:03:15 -0000

Oh, and by the way I didn't wet my pants down at Mark's Texas Hots, I just left. I never actually saw the gun, my friend did. How? Well, I asked him again about it, it wasn't concealed, it was out on his lap in his hand. I left because I trusted my friend's judgement, not because I had seen it for myself. Now what would you have done?

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

Ryan_W — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:57:37 -0000

Your argument completely falls apart, don't most corner type stores in the city have armed cashiers? I'd argue you'd have to be a pretty stupid proprietor to not have some sort of protection. Surprisingly, these places still somehow get robbed.

Your argument for arming the general population falls apart too. While I can be fairly certain a store owner won't shoot me (if he wants me to buy his goods) I can't be certain delinquent or mentally unstable people would. How many times have you seen a bar fight by stupid people who are drunk or overly emotional? Now imagine if each time this happened they brought out guns instead of pummeling each other with their fists? This isn't the society I want to live in.

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

DAISY_YANG — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 12:27:28 -0000

PENISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

Re: Hey Duffy, No More Cameras!

DAISY_YANG — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 02:29:50 -0000

Free speech may not be dead in America, but it sure is on riseupRochester.org. My comments on the board that is lamenting the death of free speech are being censored for being different than that of the moderator. I'm going to submit my thoughts on this subject (and on what is clearly a sham of a website in general) to the D&C, and get their opinion...