I agree with some of your analysis, but not your tactical approach.
In a nut shell you are saying don't defend yourself or your home/property because it's not worth it. Just hope the person breaking in only wants that VCR and does not decide to line your family up on its knees in a nice line and start executing them 1 by 1 just because they can.
In the end each person makes a choice on how they will live; to either be a submissive victim and hope for the best when confronted or to not be, it's a personal choice and each group seems to have their own arguments for and against.
If they are simply searching your laptop in real time for illegal content then that is the same thing as going through your luggage (they can open sealed envelopes already, ect, ect) The problem would arise if they were using any kind of imaging software to make a permanent record of your hard drive or anything on it. That would be the same thing as ceasing items out of your luggage at random for later perusal which is something they cannot do. From what the artical says it does not appear they are doing anything like that they are just looking through the contents of the drive live, looking for issues same as they do your suitcase, so for now at least it seems on the up and up.
Otherwise, we all might as well get chipped with GPS locators and audio/video recorders and route everything to your nearest friendly community overlord.
As an additional point tasers are not used instead of guns, rather they are used instead of physically restraining people - which leads to more casualties than there would have been otherwise. Non lethal weapons such as these cause more harm to society then they prevent
No that's not correct - tasers are like asps, stun guns, bean bag guns, ect and they are used as a way for officers to maintain control/apprehend a suspect when lethal force is either not authorized or the risk to a secondary person is unacceptably high. (For example, a dangerous suspect holding a child or something along these lines.)
The argument that non lethal solutions cause more casualties than LEATHAL forms has always confused me. Explain to me please, how if I hit you with a taser that somehow puts your life in more jeopardy than say if I double tap you COM with my Glock?
I shudder at the lack of trust between this young man and his mother though. If it is justified, he will probably end up in jail once he turns 18 and can no longer be legally restrained.
Yes because every teenager who tries to get around simple programs to view porn ends up in prison.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with some of your analysis, but not your tactical approach.
In a nut shell you are saying don't defend yourself or your home/property because it's not worth it. Just hope the person breaking in only wants that VCR and does not decide to line your family up on its knees in a nice line and start executing them 1 by 1 just because they can.
In the end each person makes a choice on how they will live; to either be a submissive victim and hope for the best when confronted or to not be, it's a personal choice and each group seems to have their own arguments for and against.
If they are simply searching your laptop in real time for illegal content then that is the same thing as going through your luggage (they can open sealed envelopes already, ect, ect) The problem would arise if they were using any kind of imaging software to make a permanent record of your hard drive or anything on it. That would be the same thing as ceasing items out of your luggage at random for later perusal which is something they cannot do. From what the artical says it does not appear they are doing anything like that they are just looking through the contents of the drive live, looking for issues same as they do your suitcase, so for now at least it seems on the up and up.
Otherwise, we all might as well get chipped with GPS locators and audio/video recorders and route everything to your nearest friendly community overlord.
Is that not what our cell phones are for?
funniest thing i've read here in a long while.
As an additional point tasers are not used instead of guns, rather they are used instead of physically restraining people - which leads to more casualties than there would have been otherwise. Non lethal weapons such as these cause more harm to society then they prevent
No that's not correct - tasers are like asps, stun guns, bean bag guns, ect and they are used as a way for officers to maintain control/apprehend a suspect when lethal force is either not authorized or the risk to a secondary person is unacceptably high. (For example, a dangerous suspect holding a child or something along these lines.)
The argument that non lethal solutions cause more casualties than LEATHAL forms has always confused me. Explain to me please, how if I hit you with a taser that somehow puts your life in more jeopardy than say if I double tap you COM with my Glock?
I shudder at the lack of trust between this young man and his mother though. If it is justified, he will probably end up in jail once he turns 18 and can no longer be legally restrained.
Yes because every teenager who tries to get around simple programs to view porn ends up in prison.