HOW SOON WILL THE GUN CAMERAS GO…?
Just as Wal-Mart did when it briefly took an enlightened stance toward sexual/gender orientation, Wal-Mart has adopted a social position that has raised the ire of the political wrong over the gun control. But I think Wal-Mart is up to something else.
I think it is using what it perceives as a generally popular policy — the purely cosmetic (in terms of reducing gun crime) action of videotaping buyers of rifles and shotguns — to increase its own use of surveillance in the store.
Reducing theft and increasing sales through tracking shopper motions by boosting levels of surveillance has been a part of Wal-Mart’s strategy for sometime. The challenge has been, as Peter Hoyt, executive director of In-Store Marketing Institute, put it, to not have shoppers freak out when they discover that they’re being watched.
The gamble is here whether or not customers, knowing that someone is being watched for a good reason, will somehow be less freaked out knowing that they’re being watched for some other reason.
The administration of President George Bush and his Department of Homeland Security have done much to accustom Americans to a level of surveillance that prior to 11 September 2001, citizens would not have tolerated. Do you think Wal-Mart can capitalize on the trashing of the Constitution of the United States or have such actions passed the boundaries of acceptability?
I’ve been wondering about surveillance for a long time. There is a proposal out today to get DNA samples from everyone arrested.
It is well known that surveillance doesn’t prevent crime, it does make it easier to catch people after the crime has been committed. It also makes it easier to round up political dissidents who have not done anything wrong but oppose those in power.
What I’m wondering is about the dynamics of criminal or “terrorist” activity if one is almost certain of being caught. Obviously the extreme case is that of suicide bombers, but if one knows one will be caught eventually then might it make more sense to commit a bigger crime rather than a smaller one?
Take as an example one of these rampage shootings that seems to happen all to frequently these days. I’m not talking about the ones committed by deranged people, they are not making rational decisions, but suppose you set out to kill someone you know. If you are going to get caught then why not settle several other scores at the same time? You can only be executed or imprisoned once.
Shalom Robert,
That’s true. You’re absolutely right.
I’ve also wondered about the psychology of killing as it plays out in further murders. If I kill one person for a justified (in my mind at least) reason, it is no great leap for me to consider killing all witnesses to my crime. I can only serve on life sentence or be executed once, regardless of how many I kill.
B’shalom,
Jeff
So, are you guys going to film purchases?
OK – a crime is committed in your town. Every Wal-Mart store gets out their recorded purchases of guns and starts going through them. That could take weeks, even months! But there is something lacking here. Criminals are, well, as you know … criminals. They steal guns! They do that because, gosh, golly, gee, THEY ARE CRIMINALS!
How does Wal-Mart propose that criminals be recorded in the act stealing guns from peoples homes? Should I, and everyone else, set up surveillance cameras in our homes and turn them on whenever anyone who is not a resident enters? That way when a crime is committed we can go through our recordings and determine if anyone took any of our firearms. Then everyone can deluge the police department with calls that the gun used to commit a crime wasn’t theirs.
What is not reported is that Wal-Mart has over fifty cameras inside their stores and twelve outside. Each camera has a separate recorder and the sporting goods department has ALWAYS had cameras. The system is called “loss prevention.”
Shalom Catrina,
That’s true. You’re absolutely right.
B’shalom,
Jeff