One last point: it is a common argument that US focus on "punishment" over "rehabilitation" in justice system is one of the main causes of its high criminality among population. As noted above, a small circle of people is responsible for a lot of crime. As a result, preventing recidivism through rehabilitation is naturally far more efficient deterrent to future crime then trying to catch first timers or increasing scope of punishment but focusing on punishing part and not bothering to rehabilitate.
In all the honesty, this is true for a lot of modern "hystia" crime. Problem is the way people react to sensationalist news and media wanting to make money in the world where media competes with other media for views and sensationalist headlines simply outsell realistic ones.
As a result we have hysterical treatment of things like child molesting (well in excess of 95% of all child molestation, rape and similar crime happens inside the family), rape (80-95% inside family depending on definition of rape).
Another interesting thing is criminality in general. More often then not, crime rates are quoted as average per population. However when you look at median distribution, you'll note that average working class citizen across most Western countries (though perhaps not US) actually has about the same chance of being a victim of violent crime. Except for certain extremely poor/recidivist circles, which are tiny in relation to general public in size, but commit a large portion of all crimes.
Rape crime is a really good example of this. Media likes to portray rape as "something that every woman should be afraid of". I.e. "bush rapists", someone who jumps out of the bush, drags you into it and rapes you. This has almost nothing in common with reality - while such rapes indeed happen, likelihood of this happening to a woman is incredibly small. However you can cook the numbers to look actually scary when you take people who live in certain social strata where rape is almost a daily occurrence (women who are in abusive families, the criminal gangs, prostitutes) then average their numbers over entire population, it suddenly starts to look like entire population is under serious rape threat.
At the same time, the amount of "bush rape" has been all but collapsing even in US. That, in spite of our cultural advancement that keeps increasing more and more types of sexual behaviour associated with word rape (consider case Assange in Sweden, what he did isn't even a crime in US or GB).
These statistics are either cooked, completely ignore the elephant in the room while focusing on the fly on the wall or just plain pulled out of your ass. It's a widely known fact that somewhere between 80 and 95 percent of all rapes happen inside family and friends circles. This is when going by modern Western model of rape, which counts raping family member and such as rape, and is fairly common regardless of culture. For example, Brazil has recently amended its rape law to include these, and has observed the same issue: somewhere between 80 and 95 percent of all rape is inside family and friends circles.
Unless of course, you cook the book to count every time someone who is family of someone else comes for a visit that ends in rape "home invasion" (which would indeed be "cooking the statistics" as it has nothing to do with burglary) or you just plain ignore pretty much all rape and focus on some small count of rapes (i.e. ignore over 80-95% of all rapes). Which puts us to the point of what exactly is your intention with this strawman argument?
Google the difference if you don't understand it otherwise and stop talking about "armed forces of other countries". It paints a very bad picture of your intelligence when talking about a civil war.
And for all that is holy, please don't talk about video games as good examples. Thanks.
Let us imagine this mystical world where even artillery is allowed to be owned. Let us even imagine the world where this nuclear, biological and chemical ammunition for this would be legal, as you claim. Let us imagine that this will not result in massive scale destruction when someone owning this stuff decides to go out in blaze of glory.
Now ask yourself, how many of these heavy weapons would you need to defeat an army. Army that has tanks that are designed to survive being fairly close to epicenter of tactical nuclear weapon detonation, with full ABC protection kit and appropriate command structure guiding it. Attack helicopters and fixed wing planes designed to find and kill your heavy weapons.
Do you really think, even in your most drugged out moments, that there would be enough people who could afford, care for and maintain such weapons to make a difference in a major civil war against government? As in to have these functional, working and be ready to function on short notice?
At this point, I find myself questioning you ever having to handle any kind of a heavy weapon. I've had to train with artillery and mortar guys, and the amount of caring after the guns needed to keep them in serviceable condition was incredibly high. And these are considered low maintenance among heavy weapons.
I do wonder how long that idealism of your will last. Until they kill a few thousand of other americans they view as enemies? Until someone you know dies? Someone in your family?
You should really look up to what happens to people like you in civil wars. It's will be quite an eye opener to see just how little it takes for people to go from "they are my people, I would never raise my hand against them" to "kill those bloody murderers and mutilate their corpses" in civil wars.
I think you need to study up a bit on how civil wars in general are fought. You appear to be genuinely uninformed on the issue.
To be clear: rising of part of the nation against government through force of arms is known as "civil war".
You seem to assume a monolithic invasion force, such as Afghanistan. That is why I instead presented you with Libya, which is indeed a full on civil war and a great example on what happens in modern civil wars. It's an even better example in relation to US because of how Libya operated (approximately 150 different tribes united under the same flag, much like current US states), as well as situation with weapons in control of the nation and small army.
What part of that makes you think that these "stupid" burglars don't actively avoid getting caught? How many of these cases you're talking about where they actively hitting a place with owner inside?
Sure, they can be less then intelligent. Especially about things other then break and entry, search for valuables and exit.
In a case of civil war, military would likely be split among the fighting faction lines, as typically happens. Some commanders and their bases would go one way, some go the other and so on.
Again, Libyan conflict shows a very good example of modern civil war.
But these still want to avoid getting caught. You seem to assume that burglars have motives other then profit. That's hollywood material that has about as much roots in reality as John Rambo is a realistic depiction of a soldier.
Pretty much this. Most people watch far too many hollywood movies. Burglar's goal is stealing your stuff with as little risk as possible.
That means that #1 rule of any decent burglar is to enter when there's no one at home. That's why they employ countless techniques, such as calling, ringing the bell and so on before trying to enter.
Real methods of fighting burglars usually involve either convincing them you're home when you're not, or getting security setup that makes them think they have a high chance of getting detected during the crime.
Not entirely sure if you understand what you're talking about. Parent is talking about resisting their own government. That means CIVIL war. Not invasion.
Parent was specifically talking about civil uprising fighting the government as an argument in support of citizen weapon ownership. That means full on civil war. That means that nation will be split into factions, one of which will be supported by government, and parent assumes he'll end up in one of the factions opposing the government.
That may or may not mean fighting in those cities, depending on what faction these cities happen to side with. Libyan example comes to mind again, as it Tripoli and other major cities were peaceful as they were completely under control by one faction and mostly suffered occasional terrorist attack early in the war, while eastern cities mainly controlled by rebels were being shelled by heavy artillery routinely (and would have collapsed to government forces without NATO intervention).
I'm talking about resisting YOUR government, not foreign invader that is actively invading you. There is a reason why civil wars (what I was talking about) and invasions (what you're talking about) have completely different strategies, tactics and methods of fighting.
Before you try to move on with you logic, you should know I'm from Finland. We have a higher rate of guns per people in the country then you. But these guns are for army reserves, buried in caches across the country, because we actually have a realistic scenario of invasion by another large government supported by fairly recent history.
Wouldn't it be interesting if women made husbands do stuff on interior design and embroidery.
Wait no, that's the way to make sure he'll spend his evenings in a nearest bar to escape that cruel fate. And yet, you seem assured that this process would be "interesting"...
I take it you haven't had any serious relationships yet?
Bad news. If government wanted to crush an armed rebellion, it would succeed. Guns allowed by US laws are generally on the level of Libyan rebels.
Take a look at success rate of Libyan rebels vs their government until West came in with superior heavy weaponry and special forces teams to direct their fire. They were literally being slaughtered like animals with heavy weaponry when they tried to do something other then running away. It was a blood bath, and one that those guys with their small firearms quickly learned to adapt due to Darwinian selection.
If you want to win wars against governments, you need heavy weaponry, organised military and preferably outside support. Else, you're just an idiot who thinks his firearm will help him against tanks, artillery and bombers.
It's not just highly unusual, it's pretty much unique to US. There are some very poor former colonies with similar laws, but these tend to not have most of the rights for their citizens in the first place.
When someone commits a crime, that means they break law(s) set by society. Civilized Western countries (in this case, as with most cases related to criminal law being even remotely reasonable, US is not on the list) tend to have a legal process which causes loss of ability to inflict any more crimes of this nature for a period during which they try to rehabilitate that citizen so he will not commit those crimes when his freedom to act is restored.
This should not cause loss of any rights not directly related to the said crime. They are still humans, and still citizens of the country with all the legal protection granted to all other citizens.
US has a strong history of frontier justice due to its very recent colonial past, which causes it to have a very skewed "punish for vengeance, not prevention and rehabilitation" culture largely absent in most of the world. Restriction of rights not related to crime is VENGEANCE, not REHABILITATION. In vast majority of the Western world, avenging crimes by society is viewed as uncivilized brutality. A great example of this is Norway and its handling of Breivik.
It's one of the major cultural clashes that US tends to have with other countries, and one of the main reasons why prison populations in US are completely different from those in rest of Western world.
Take a look at Gandhi for other side of the coin. Violent people tend to focus on violent solutions. "When you have a hammer, all problems start to look like nails".
Slashdot Mirror
One last point: it is a common argument that US focus on "punishment" over "rehabilitation" in justice system is one of the main causes of its high criminality among population. As noted above, a small circle of people is responsible for a lot of crime. As a result, preventing recidivism through rehabilitation is naturally far more efficient deterrent to future crime then trying to catch first timers or increasing scope of punishment but focusing on punishing part and not bothering to rehabilitate.
Misspelled "hysteria" there on the first line. Long workday and it shows...
In all the honesty, this is true for a lot of modern "hystia" crime. Problem is the way people react to sensationalist news and media wanting to make money in the world where media competes with other media for views and sensationalist headlines simply outsell realistic ones.
As a result we have hysterical treatment of things like child molesting (well in excess of 95% of all child molestation, rape and similar crime happens inside the family), rape (80-95% inside family depending on definition of rape).
Another interesting thing is criminality in general. More often then not, crime rates are quoted as average per population. However when you look at median distribution, you'll note that average working class citizen across most Western countries (though perhaps not US) actually has about the same chance of being a victim of violent crime. Except for certain extremely poor/recidivist circles, which are tiny in relation to general public in size, but commit a large portion of all crimes.
Rape crime is a really good example of this. Media likes to portray rape as "something that every woman should be afraid of". I.e. "bush rapists", someone who jumps out of the bush, drags you into it and rapes you. This has almost nothing in common with reality - while such rapes indeed happen, likelihood of this happening to a woman is incredibly small. However you can cook the numbers to look actually scary when you take people who live in certain social strata where rape is almost a daily occurrence (women who are in abusive families, the criminal gangs, prostitutes) then average their numbers over entire population, it suddenly starts to look like entire population is under serious rape threat.
At the same time, the amount of "bush rape" has been all but collapsing even in US. That, in spite of our cultural advancement that keeps increasing more and more types of sexual behaviour associated with word rape (consider case Assange in Sweden, what he did isn't even a crime in US or GB).
These statistics are either cooked, completely ignore the elephant in the room while focusing on the fly on the wall or just plain pulled out of your ass. It's a widely known fact that somewhere between 80 and 95 percent of all rapes happen inside family and friends circles. This is when going by modern Western model of rape, which counts raping family member and such as rape, and is fairly common regardless of culture. For example, Brazil has recently amended its rape law to include these, and has observed the same issue: somewhere between 80 and 95 percent of all rape is inside family and friends circles.
Unless of course, you cook the book to count every time someone who is family of someone else comes for a visit that ends in rape "home invasion" (which would indeed be "cooking the statistics" as it has nothing to do with burglary) or you just plain ignore pretty much all rape and focus on some small count of rapes (i.e. ignore over 80-95% of all rapes). Which puts us to the point of what exactly is your intention with this strawman argument?
You misspelled "they fucked you, so fuck everyone else". People who'd get "fucked" are other students.
CIVIL wars. Not foreign invasions.
Google the difference if you don't understand it otherwise and stop talking about "armed forces of other countries". It paints a very bad picture of your intelligence when talking about a civil war.
And for all that is holy, please don't talk about video games as good examples. Thanks.
Let us imagine this mystical world where even artillery is allowed to be owned. Let us even imagine the world where this nuclear, biological and chemical ammunition for this would be legal, as you claim. Let us imagine that this will not result in massive scale destruction when someone owning this stuff decides to go out in blaze of glory.
Now ask yourself, how many of these heavy weapons would you need to defeat an army. Army that has tanks that are designed to survive being fairly close to epicenter of tactical nuclear weapon detonation, with full ABC protection kit and appropriate command structure guiding it. Attack helicopters and fixed wing planes designed to find and kill your heavy weapons.
Do you really think, even in your most drugged out moments, that there would be enough people who could afford, care for and maintain such weapons to make a difference in a major civil war against government? As in to have these functional, working and be ready to function on short notice?
At this point, I find myself questioning you ever having to handle any kind of a heavy weapon. I've had to train with artillery and mortar guys, and the amount of caring after the guns needed to keep them in serviceable condition was incredibly high. And these are considered low maintenance among heavy weapons.
I do wonder how long that idealism of your will last. Until they kill a few thousand of other americans they view as enemies? Until someone you know dies? Someone in your family?
You should really look up to what happens to people like you in civil wars. It's will be quite an eye opener to see just how little it takes for people to go from "they are my people, I would never raise my hand against them" to "kill those bloody murderers and mutilate their corpses" in civil wars.
I think you need to study up a bit on how civil wars in general are fought. You appear to be genuinely uninformed on the issue.
To be clear: rising of part of the nation against government through force of arms is known as "civil war".
You seem to assume a monolithic invasion force, such as Afghanistan. That is why I instead presented you with Libya, which is indeed a full on civil war and a great example on what happens in modern civil wars. It's an even better example in relation to US because of how Libya operated (approximately 150 different tribes united under the same flag, much like current US states), as well as situation with weapons in control of the nation and small army.
Whoosh.
What part of that makes you think that these "stupid" burglars don't actively avoid getting caught? How many of these cases you're talking about where they actively hitting a place with owner inside?
Sure, they can be less then intelligent. Especially about things other then break and entry, search for valuables and exit.
In a case of civil war, military would likely be split among the fighting faction lines, as typically happens. Some commanders and their bases would go one way, some go the other and so on.
Again, Libyan conflict shows a very good example of modern civil war.
But these still want to avoid getting caught. You seem to assume that burglars have motives other then profit. That's hollywood material that has about as much roots in reality as John Rambo is a realistic depiction of a soldier.
And when you look again, you notice that it was a person after all?
Pretty much this. Most people watch far too many hollywood movies. Burglar's goal is stealing your stuff with as little risk as possible.
That means that #1 rule of any decent burglar is to enter when there's no one at home. That's why they employ countless techniques, such as calling, ringing the bell and so on before trying to enter.
Real methods of fighting burglars usually involve either convincing them you're home when you're not, or getting security setup that makes them think they have a high chance of getting detected during the crime.
Not entirely sure if you understand what you're talking about. Parent is talking about resisting their own government. That means CIVIL war. Not invasion.
Think Libya. Not Afghanistan.
Parent was specifically talking about civil uprising fighting the government as an argument in support of citizen weapon ownership. That means full on civil war. That means that nation will be split into factions, one of which will be supported by government, and parent assumes he'll end up in one of the factions opposing the government.
That may or may not mean fighting in those cities, depending on what faction these cities happen to side with. Libyan example comes to mind again, as it Tripoli and other major cities were peaceful as they were completely under control by one faction and mostly suffered occasional terrorist attack early in the war, while eastern cities mainly controlled by rebels were being shelled by heavy artillery routinely (and would have collapsed to government forces without NATO intervention).
I'm talking about resisting YOUR government, not foreign invader that is actively invading you. There is a reason why civil wars (what I was talking about) and invasions (what you're talking about) have completely different strategies, tactics and methods of fighting.
Before you try to move on with you logic, you should know I'm from Finland. We have a higher rate of guns per people in the country then you. But these guns are for army reserves, buried in caches across the country, because we actually have a realistic scenario of invasion by another large government supported by fairly recent history.
Wouldn't it be interesting if women made husbands do stuff on interior design and embroidery.
Wait no, that's the way to make sure he'll spend his evenings in a nearest bar to escape that cruel fate. And yet, you seem assured that this process would be "interesting"...
I take it you haven't had any serious relationships yet?
Bad news. If government wanted to crush an armed rebellion, it would succeed. Guns allowed by US laws are generally on the level of Libyan rebels.
Take a look at success rate of Libyan rebels vs their government until West came in with superior heavy weaponry and special forces teams to direct their fire. They were literally being slaughtered like animals with heavy weaponry when they tried to do something other then running away. It was a blood bath, and one that those guys with their small firearms quickly learned to adapt due to Darwinian selection.
If you want to win wars against governments, you need heavy weaponry, organised military and preferably outside support. Else, you're just an idiot who thinks his firearm will help him against tanks, artillery and bombers.
It's not just highly unusual, it's pretty much unique to US. There are some very poor former colonies with similar laws, but these tend to not have most of the rights for their citizens in the first place.
When someone commits a crime, that means they break law(s) set by society. Civilized Western countries (in this case, as with most cases related to criminal law being even remotely reasonable, US is not on the list) tend to have a legal process which causes loss of ability to inflict any more crimes of this nature for a period during which they try to rehabilitate that citizen so he will not commit those crimes when his freedom to act is restored.
This should not cause loss of any rights not directly related to the said crime. They are still humans, and still citizens of the country with all the legal protection granted to all other citizens.
US has a strong history of frontier justice due to its very recent colonial past, which causes it to have a very skewed "punish for vengeance, not prevention and rehabilitation" culture largely absent in most of the world. Restriction of rights not related to crime is VENGEANCE, not REHABILITATION. In vast majority of the Western world, avenging crimes by society is viewed as uncivilized brutality. A great example of this is Norway and its handling of Breivik.
It's one of the major cultural clashes that US tends to have with other countries, and one of the main reasons why prison populations in US are completely different from those in rest of Western world.
Take a look at Gandhi for other side of the coin. Violent people tend to focus on violent solutions. "When you have a hammer, all problems start to look like nails".
I think that makes for a fairly important emphasis. YOU can indeed afford to leave clueless users to their devices.
OS maker with a significant stake in getting herd immunity for their OS? Not so much.
You now begin to understand the problem that is online security.