Even in urban areas in the US, stationary cameras have extremely poor coverage. More importantly, most stationary cameras can't be commanded by police to send a

Even in urban areas in the US, stationary cameras have extremely poor coverage. More importantly, most stationary cameras can't be commanded by police to send a live feed. Building a network of cameras covering the entire city would have large infrastructure costs and significant surveillance concerns. As far as I know, only a few places in the UK have done this. The infrastructure cost of drones is much lower, and privacy concerns are practically nonexistent. The drones would only record for a few minutes around the area of a shooting. Yes, some places might have poor sight-lines. That's a great example of where drones beat static cameras. Places with poor sight-lines would require many static cameras, and they'd need to be updated to reflect new construction. Drones can fly around obstructions, making them more effective than cameras in these situations. Human controllers would be useful, but cost wouldn't be a problem. You don't need a deputized police officer on "drone duty" at every station. More likely, controllers would be contractors servicing a large area. Software would dispatch the drone to the location of gunfire and a pilot would explore the area to give the all-clear. "Severe human casualties" are impossible. These drones would weigh less than 10 lbs and carry no weapons. They'd be no more dangerous than personal drones today. Concerns about "hacking" are a movie plot threat. The risk of hacking is the same for any application of drones, including home delivery. I think I've addressed most of your points. Still, it's annoying that cleaning up a mess takes so much longer than making one. I think your comments could be much higher quality if you made a few thoughtful objections instead of replying with every objection that comes to mind.