| > I could feel the outrage in your comment I think you're mistaking a clue bat for outrage. You sound like me when I was in high school: high on concern, low on experience. I don't know if you're young or not, but I'm basically saying what I needed to hear back then. Also, my comment was not intended to offer unqualified support for this program. But if we're going to debate it, let's debate it in terms of the real world and not in a philosophical vacuum. The real world has checks in place like wiretapping laws and evidence rules. Are these perfect? Maybe not, but you do not even acknowledge that they exist. > According to the article, the vast majority of gunfire in a city doesn't cause death or major bodily injury. That looks pretty victimless to me. Gunfire in dense urban areas is harmful even if it does not hit anything: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4036259 > To me, it looks like the purpose of these urban firearm discharge laws are just to have another crime to tack on to a suspect when sending them off to jail. Suppose you lived in a high-crime area. Are you saying that it's totally fine with you if people drive down the street shooting guns as long as they don't hit anything? If you hear gunfire, how do you decide whether you are in danger or not? > If you want to automate enforcement, we're going to have to get rid of a lot of legal code. There's nothing in the article AFAICS about automating enforcement, just detection. I'm not sure how you're going to charge someone with discharging a firearm without an officer showing up. How would you even know who to charge? |