So, as others pointed out, at worst he has a 50/50 chance of choosing correctly if he just flips a coin. However, I'm willing to bet that yelling "STOP! Police!" will pretty quickly let you weed out the good from the bad.
So, yes it's possible that the wrong person gets shot by the police, but the chances are pretty good that the event will be largely over before the police actually arrive anyway if there is an armed citizen there to confront the shooter. So, if you play the odds, it's better by far to have armed citizens there to disrupt the shooter before the police can arrive and take the chance somebody gets shot by mistake than just let the shooter have their way unopposed until the police can respond in 5 or 10 min...
I'm not claiming the solution is perfect, only that it's the best one we have that's practical both physically and legally. I don't think anybody can argue with that.
Yea, I know.. I'm just trying to show the liberal bleeding hearts out there that even though they feel strongly about something, they still need to stop and take the time to think clearly and fully about what they are suggesting we do about stuff. That there might be historical and legal considerations that outweigh their feelings of needing to do something... I know it's a long shot, but us crazy right wingers have got to try.
If this went down as you describe, the lady going "cowboy" was in the wrong and STUIPID. You DON'T have the right to use deadly force in that situation. So apply the law and put her butt in jail and take her gun away because she broke the law..
However, this is NOT a valid reason to take MY firearm away, nor is it a reason to bash people who choose to legally carry. We as a rule, don't go around acting like cowboys and shooting up places for fun or sport. In fact, CHL (Concealed Handgun License) carriers are hardly ever involved in gun crimes of any kind. Statistics show that the chances of an CHL holder being involved in any crime involving a gun is more than two orders of magnitude lower than the average population.
Look, when the shooting starts, bad things are going to happen no matter what. The goal is to STOP the guy intent on shooting innocent folks sooner rather than later.
Personally, if there is a law abiding person with a gun who is willing to actually try and do something that might stop the carnage sooner, I'm willing to accept that there are times when they will inadvertently cause damage, shoot the wrong person or what have you. So if I was in the room with a nut intent on committing mass murder I would welcome the intervention of ANYBODY with a gun in an attempt to stop the nut. I'd rather take my chances with somebody who was trying to help over somebody who was intent on killing me ANY day.
Quote the WHOLE amendment now and realize what it says...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning of a "Well regulated Militia" is really what is in question here. It means "Well Equipped" in today's parlance according to some, but if you look at the various revisions of this amendment as it was debated, it clearly means that citizens (all of them) where part of the Militia, which really turns the phrase into "A well armed population is necessary to the security of a free State" which makes the phrase the REASON for the amendment, not a limitation as to how or where the right to arms exists.
So here are a few of the revisions of this amendment as it was debated in Congress... (Taken from Wikipedia)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
It is clear that Congress intended to allow ordinary citizens to have arms to serve in the necessary defense of themselves and by extension the State. Which is in great contrast to how England regulated arms. You remember that march on Concord Massachusetts by the British and how it started the revolutionary war? You do remember what that was about right? No, there where not there to collect taxes on Tea... The British where there to capture a suspected illegal arms cache. How'd that turn out?
So stop with this canard and trying to claim the phrase "Well Regulated Militia" puts limitations on the right to arms. It doesn't. The phrase is the REASON for the right and it really just explains why the framers where not allowing the infringement of all citizens rights to arms.
More that just the 2nd amendment will need to be rewritten... A good portion of the Bill of Rights will need some revisions if we intend to allow the types of searches and taking of private property which will be necessary to remove enough guns from circulation that it will matter.
And even if you manage to ban guns, there's still other ways to kill an unarmed populace. I remember a story a while back about some guy in Sweden who went on a rampage with a sword.
Yep, two dead and two wounded. Compare that to the current 14 dead.
This is not a valid argument you know. Until somebody comes up with a way to confiscate the vast majority of firearms on the street, the only thing gun laws do is to limit the legal access to firearms which only really takes them out of the hands of people who follow the law and don't go around shooting people anyway. Given the Bill of Rights is currently still the law of the land, there is no legal or practical way to get enough guns off the streets to make a difference here. Can we stop trying to act like this idea is a solution?
Just wait, there will be plenty of people posting here, claiming that those 14 wouldn't be dead if they had just brought guns with them and shot first.
Who can know that?
However, based on a conversation I had with my brother in law last week, who is a police officer with nearly 20 years experience, he tells me that the training they receive for "active shooter" situations has been totally changed. They used to have a "Containment" strategy, where the idea was to get the shooter contained and wait for the SWAT team to show up. Not any more, now the strategy is to rush the shooter, guns blazing if the person holding the gun shooting people will not comply. Why? Because, rushing the shooter is statistically more likely to end the shooting sooner and lower the causality count. Many shooters will simply stop shooting people and shoot themselves when confronted, nearly ALL will be distracted from shooting bystanders in some way and only a few will have the ability to continue their assault. So police have changed tactics, choosing to confront the shooter with deadly force as soon as possible because it has been shown to lower causality counts.
So it stands to reason that having more armed law abiding citizens who are competent and trained on their firearms will lead to having a shooter confronted with deadly force sooner, disrupting the assault, lowering the causality count and is thus generally a good thing. So had there been a firearm in a trained hand it's likely that 14 would be something less, but there is no way to know for sure. I'm just guessing, but in this case, it seems to me that the causality count might have been reduced, but given how quickly this event went, with multiple shooters in assault gear who where obviously not out for the highest body count and die in the effort, this seems to be more of a targeted shooting where most of the 14 where part of a targeted group or simply standing too close to the actual target. It seems unlikely that an armed person could have done much but distract the shooters, but neither could the police for that matter. Such "military like" assaults with specific targets are extremely rare, even among mass shooting, but even then, one armed citizen in the right place with a weapon could easily disrupt the shooters' plans enough to lower the body count.
This is NOT saying that the victims are to blame for not being armed.... That's just YOU trying to set up a straw man argument. Nobody says junk like that on this side of the argument and you know it.
Actually, I think you are wrong, we need more guns in the right hands... Follow me on this...
MORE guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually provides a deterrence by making it more risky for criminals who choose to use their guns illegally. Shooters generally choose "soft" targets, places where they know guns are less common such as movie theaters or public schools for a reason. Further, having armed law abiding citizens means that it is more likely a criminal shooter will be confronted with deadly force sooner which is very likely to end the shooting event sooner as most shooters will withdraw or commit suicide when they are confronted.
So, more guns in the right hands will deter mass shootings and when they do happen (and they will) having more guns in the right hands will lower the body counts. So I conclude we need MORE guns out there, in the right hands.
Then there is the whole constitutional problem the "less guns" folks try to ignore. The only way 'less guns" works is if you go out and take the majority of the guns in circulation now and destroy them, but legally you cannot do this in any practical way I can imagine. The Second Amendment makes gun ownership a right of the people and the courts have upheld this right so you cannot take it away, short of removing the second amendment. Plus, short of going out and doing an exhaustive search for weapons (think of jackboots going door to door) and confiscating them the only people you will disarm by making guns illegal are the very people you really want to be armed. Exhaustive searches are also a constitutional problem, so you are going to need to make another change or two in that pesky bill of rights.
So stop this emotional "Less Guns" idea. Where I understand the emotional appeal, it's totally unworkable as an idea due to the Bill of Rights, will arguably have exactly the opposite affect you desire, and simply cannot solve the problem.
Actually, moron, it's a reason to ban guns. Less guns means less gun violence. I'm tired of living in a country where idiots continually respond to gun violence by saying "We need more guns."
We don't need 250 million guns. We need less guns. I'm happy the cops here have guns; it's pretty clear I have less to fear from them than I do from the civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Ban guns.
That pesky 2nd amendment will need to be changed before you can just go out and collect all the guns... And don't be fooled, you will need to collect ALL of them... But I fear that your biggest obstacle will be modifying the constitution and until you do, NOTHING will really change here, Private ownership of guns will continue.
Assuming you get the constitution changed and remove the 2nd amendment, Welcome to Utopia. (NOT!).. Sure, some will willingly turn in their weapons once you get the laws changed, but others will not. What are you going to do? Grab the jack boots and literally search every nook and cranny of everybody's homes, cars, properties and persons.... Oh, wait, you are going to need to change that pesky constitution again and remove another couple of amendments....
So, do you understand how your idea is naïve and unworkable? How you will need to trample on the vary legal foundations of the country? How stupid this whole idea of yours really is?
I'm open to debate what we can do about this kind of craziness, but eliminating all guns is a non-starter. It's not possible with our current constitutional framework. Outlawing guns doesn't solve the problem and there is evidence it actually makes the situation worse.
Personally, I DON'T run the Telco provided router and I suggest you not use it either. In fact, my ISP sent me a new router just last week and I don't plan to even unwrap it. Go buy your own, load your choice of open source firmware on it and leave the ISP's router in the box.
If you are REQUIRED to run the ISP's router, put your own router *behind* it and hide your whole network from your ISP either by using NAT or have a very strict firewall rule set (or both). (I.E create a DMZ and put your network behind it).
As in all of life, it depends. It depends on what you want your router to actually do...
Personally, I use OpenWRT on a couple of WNDR4300's that I picked up off of E-Bay over time, but I went with this router because it was CHEAP and had a VLAN capable switch. Even though I use this device, I'd not suggest it to others because currently the OpenWRT build for it is something you have to do on your own, not that it's hard, it's just time consuming.
But more to your question.. How do you know what hardware is best supported in OpenWRT? I suggest the following: First, check the supported hard ware list and make sure your exact hardware is there and shows that it's supported. Then make sure there are understandable installation instructions and that there is a build provided for your device. Finally, take a look at the device's forums and poke around to find out what kinds of problems other people are having with the hardware. In short, investigate the issues, use your favorite search engine, go look it up.
You can only delay a determined attacker's entry, you cannot stop it with any lock.
Real security requires multiple layers and techniques. Yea, you need good locks that are hard to finesse open, containers which are difficult to breach when locked, but you also need to provide surveillance which is regularly monitored using things like motion detectors, video cameras, actual guards walking by, in order to catch attackers before they can breach the container. Thus, you will find that safes are classified by how long it takes to brute force them open by a knowledgeable attacker and are routinely tested by digging out the drills, hammers, torches and stethoscopes to make sure they meet standards..
Ever heard of a home owners association created by deed restrictions? They are EXACTLY what you describe, and they obviously exist.
Look, there are decency limits of what you can do in public enshrined in law, so apparently there exists enough reason to put limits on public activity beyond safety. Even in New York City in Times Square they have specific rules about how one must dress which are more about not offending the majority of the tourists who frequent the landmark. So YES it's about how things appear, but it's also about the public good in some ways too so you cannot focus too sharply on just one part of this.
Locks mealy reduce temptation by putting a token obstacle in the way. Most of us have a working conscience that will prevent us from doing wrong, however many of us are subject to temptation as well. Putting even an easily bypassed obstacle in the way does three things. First, it causes the prospective criminal to have to make some extra effort, even if it's token, to actually commit the crime. Second, it induces a delay, again even if token, which allows extra time for the conscience to work. It also provides a sense that "getting caught" is more likely because it will take longer or leave evidence of tampering. In short they deter most people who generally want to do right, but provide little protection from folks who don't care.
The sad fact is we are all really criminals in the making. We all will naturally drift towards bad behavior unless some corrective force exists. Fear of being caught, guilt at doing wrong or some internal moral imperative are all that keep us off the path of self destruction. It's why kids need parents, and why the role of parents is to discipline children to shape their consciences and install moral values, to hopefully keep them off the self destructive path as adults.
You can make the argument that what two consenting adults do in private is THEIR business, and I'd be willing to entertain such a view if this was actually done in private. But it generally isn't. Oh sure, the actual act usually is, but the solicitation is decidedly public, at least on the few occasions when I've actually noticed such activity. So, come up with a way to keep it out of sight, and I'm prepared to leave each to their own.
However, the problem with this "activity" is that it encourages things like human trafficking, which is far from a victimless crime. I don't think a sufficiently strict regulatory structure can be built to prevent such abuse that doesn't cost a lot more than the current enforcement efforts based on current law. So I don't think your idea would really work out as well as you imagine. Girls will be trafficked and abused like they are now.
Remember, we've had quasi legal prostitution (still do in some places) in the past where the police colluded with brothel operators and it didn't work out all that great for the average worker, but made boatloads of cash for the owners. Consider Chicago in the 1920's, I don't think we want to do that again.
Um.... I'm not sure what's worse, paying an attorney or living with a woman who doesn't trust you, depends on the hourly rate I guess.... May I suggest that perhaps it is time for marriage counseling? Could be cheaper and might actually fix something...
You do realize that the saying "keeping honest people honest" is a common idiom, I didn't invent it.
This idiom is contradictory on it's face but it illustrates a truth about people and the human condition, nobody is perfect. You can obtain a large amount of compliance by placing even token limits on behavior. It's why we paint lines on roads, put locks on doors, label doors "Entry Only" (when by law they must function as an exit) and put DNS filters on company networks to keep NSFW surfing down. We encourage generally honest people to stay on the straight and narrow by offering even token amounts of effort to step over into "dishonest" behavior. None of my examples are any more than tokens and all are easily circumvented with little effort and serve to encourage imperfect people to do the right things because most of us actually have a conscience that we listen to and it screams loudly when it take effort to do wrong.
So, really, NOBODY is totally honest, but keeping the majority of people from being dishonest doesn't usually take much.... Which if you think about the idiom, is a clever illustration of the concept, even if it has logical consistency issues because none of us are perfect..
How to pick a lock using a pick (as in pick and shovel)
The Marines would use a 12 ga shotgun
Or a well placed foot can open a door, a window, even some walls..... Brute force is usually effective and quick. No real story in that. IF you really want in, there isn't much a $10 lock is going to do to stop you, only now you can open this lock, without the key, without destroying anything in 10 seconds...
Actually this technique does not damage the lock. It's more of a finesse technique, where you bump the lock in the correct way to overcome the force of a small internal spring to push the shackle locking pin out of the way so you can slide it open.
So, the AC is right, better lock designs might be a good idea.... But, alas it's a fool that thinks a $10 padlock is going to afford you much security. It's really only going to keep honest folk honest because they are too easy to brute force with bolt cutters, bump keys, lock picking tools etc...
Slashdot Mirror
So, as others pointed out, at worst he has a 50/50 chance of choosing correctly if he just flips a coin. However, I'm willing to bet that yelling "STOP! Police!" will pretty quickly let you weed out the good from the bad.
So, yes it's possible that the wrong person gets shot by the police, but the chances are pretty good that the event will be largely over before the police actually arrive anyway if there is an armed citizen there to confront the shooter. So, if you play the odds, it's better by far to have armed citizens there to disrupt the shooter before the police can arrive and take the chance somebody gets shot by mistake than just let the shooter have their way unopposed until the police can respond in 5 or 10 min...
I'm not claiming the solution is perfect, only that it's the best one we have that's practical both physically and legally. I don't think anybody can argue with that.
Yea, I know.. I'm just trying to show the liberal bleeding hearts out there that even though they feel strongly about something, they still need to stop and take the time to think clearly and fully about what they are suggesting we do about stuff. That there might be historical and legal considerations that outweigh their feelings of needing to do something... I know it's a long shot, but us crazy right wingers have got to try.
If this went down as you describe, the lady going "cowboy" was in the wrong and STUIPID. You DON'T have the right to use deadly force in that situation. So apply the law and put her butt in jail and take her gun away because she broke the law..
However, this is NOT a valid reason to take MY firearm away, nor is it a reason to bash people who choose to legally carry. We as a rule, don't go around acting like cowboys and shooting up places for fun or sport. In fact, CHL (Concealed Handgun License) carriers are hardly ever involved in gun crimes of any kind. Statistics show that the chances of an CHL holder being involved in any crime involving a gun is more than two orders of magnitude lower than the average population.
Oh please...
Look, when the shooting starts, bad things are going to happen no matter what. The goal is to STOP the guy intent on shooting innocent folks sooner rather than later.
Personally, if there is a law abiding person with a gun who is willing to actually try and do something that might stop the carnage sooner, I'm willing to accept that there are times when they will inadvertently cause damage, shoot the wrong person or what have you. So if I was in the room with a nut intent on committing mass murder I would welcome the intervention of ANYBODY with a gun in an attempt to stop the nut. I'd rather take my chances with somebody who was trying to help over somebody who was intent on killing me ANY day.
Quote the WHOLE amendment now and realize what it says...
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The meaning of a "Well regulated Militia" is really what is in question here. It means "Well Equipped" in today's parlance according to some, but if you look at the various revisions of this amendment as it was debated, it clearly means that citizens (all of them) where part of the Militia, which really turns the phrase into "A well armed population is necessary to the security of a free State" which makes the phrase the REASON for the amendment, not a limitation as to how or where the right to arms exists.
So here are a few of the revisions of this amendment as it was debated in Congress... (Taken from Wikipedia)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
It is clear that Congress intended to allow ordinary citizens to have arms to serve in the necessary defense of themselves and by extension the State. Which is in great contrast to how England regulated arms. You remember that march on Concord Massachusetts by the British and how it started the revolutionary war? You do remember what that was about right? No, there where not there to collect taxes on Tea... The British where there to capture a suspected illegal arms cache. How'd that turn out?
So stop with this canard and trying to claim the phrase "Well Regulated Militia" puts limitations on the right to arms. It doesn't. The phrase is the REASON for the right and it really just explains why the framers where not allowing the infringement of all citizens rights to arms.
More that just the 2nd amendment will need to be rewritten... A good portion of the Bill of Rights will need some revisions if we intend to allow the types of searches and taking of private property which will be necessary to remove enough guns from circulation that it will matter.
Over the weekend... And I'm not talking about the one in Colorado..
That's a lot of families affected for what might be an office dispute. Wonder what the DMV Christmas parties are like?
Take a number, we will be able to answer your question in about 2 hours...NEXT!
And even if you manage to ban guns, there's still other ways to kill an unarmed populace. I remember a story a while back about some guy in Sweden who went on a rampage with a sword.
Yep, two dead and two wounded. Compare that to the current 14 dead.
This is not a valid argument you know. Until somebody comes up with a way to confiscate the vast majority of firearms on the street, the only thing gun laws do is to limit the legal access to firearms which only really takes them out of the hands of people who follow the law and don't go around shooting people anyway. Given the Bill of Rights is currently still the law of the land, there is no legal or practical way to get enough guns off the streets to make a difference here. Can we stop trying to act like this idea is a solution?
Just wait, there will be plenty of people posting here, claiming that those 14 wouldn't be dead if they had just brought guns with them and shot first.
Who can know that?
However, based on a conversation I had with my brother in law last week, who is a police officer with nearly 20 years experience, he tells me that the training they receive for "active shooter" situations has been totally changed. They used to have a "Containment" strategy, where the idea was to get the shooter contained and wait for the SWAT team to show up. Not any more, now the strategy is to rush the shooter, guns blazing if the person holding the gun shooting people will not comply. Why? Because, rushing the shooter is statistically more likely to end the shooting sooner and lower the causality count. Many shooters will simply stop shooting people and shoot themselves when confronted, nearly ALL will be distracted from shooting bystanders in some way and only a few will have the ability to continue their assault. So police have changed tactics, choosing to confront the shooter with deadly force as soon as possible because it has been shown to lower causality counts.
So it stands to reason that having more armed law abiding citizens who are competent and trained on their firearms will lead to having a shooter confronted with deadly force sooner, disrupting the assault, lowering the causality count and is thus generally a good thing. So had there been a firearm in a trained hand it's likely that 14 would be something less, but there is no way to know for sure. I'm just guessing, but in this case, it seems to me that the causality count might have been reduced, but given how quickly this event went, with multiple shooters in assault gear who where obviously not out for the highest body count and die in the effort, this seems to be more of a targeted shooting where most of the 14 where part of a targeted group or simply standing too close to the actual target. It seems unlikely that an armed person could have done much but distract the shooters, but neither could the police for that matter. Such "military like" assaults with specific targets are extremely rare, even among mass shooting, but even then, one armed citizen in the right place with a weapon could easily disrupt the shooters' plans enough to lower the body count.
This is NOT saying that the victims are to blame for not being armed.... That's just YOU trying to set up a straw man argument. Nobody says junk like that on this side of the argument and you know it.
Actually, I think you are wrong, we need more guns in the right hands... Follow me on this...
MORE guns in the hands of law abiding citizens actually provides a deterrence by making it more risky for criminals who choose to use their guns illegally. Shooters generally choose "soft" targets, places where they know guns are less common such as movie theaters or public schools for a reason. Further, having armed law abiding citizens means that it is more likely a criminal shooter will be confronted with deadly force sooner which is very likely to end the shooting event sooner as most shooters will withdraw or commit suicide when they are confronted.
So, more guns in the right hands will deter mass shootings and when they do happen (and they will) having more guns in the right hands will lower the body counts. So I conclude we need MORE guns out there, in the right hands.
Then there is the whole constitutional problem the "less guns" folks try to ignore. The only way 'less guns" works is if you go out and take the majority of the guns in circulation now and destroy them, but legally you cannot do this in any practical way I can imagine. The Second Amendment makes gun ownership a right of the people and the courts have upheld this right so you cannot take it away, short of removing the second amendment. Plus, short of going out and doing an exhaustive search for weapons (think of jackboots going door to door) and confiscating them the only people you will disarm by making guns illegal are the very people you really want to be armed. Exhaustive searches are also a constitutional problem, so you are going to need to make another change or two in that pesky bill of rights.
So stop this emotional "Less Guns" idea. Where I understand the emotional appeal, it's totally unworkable as an idea due to the Bill of Rights, will arguably have exactly the opposite affect you desire, and simply cannot solve the problem.
Call The police... They are only minutes away when seconds count...
Actually, moron, it's a reason to ban guns. Less guns means less gun violence. I'm tired of living in a country where idiots continually respond to gun violence by saying "We need more guns."
We don't need 250 million guns. We need less guns. I'm happy the cops here have guns; it's pretty clear I have less to fear from them than I do from the civilians who commit literally hundreds of mass shootings every year.
Ban guns.
That pesky 2nd amendment will need to be changed before you can just go out and collect all the guns... And don't be fooled, you will need to collect ALL of them... But I fear that your biggest obstacle will be modifying the constitution and until you do, NOTHING will really change here, Private ownership of guns will continue.
Assuming you get the constitution changed and remove the 2nd amendment, Welcome to Utopia. (NOT!).. Sure, some will willingly turn in their weapons once you get the laws changed, but others will not. What are you going to do? Grab the jack boots and literally search every nook and cranny of everybody's homes, cars, properties and persons.... Oh, wait, you are going to need to change that pesky constitution again and remove another couple of amendments....
So, do you understand how your idea is naïve and unworkable? How you will need to trample on the vary legal foundations of the country? How stupid this whole idea of yours really is?
I'm open to debate what we can do about this kind of craziness, but eliminating all guns is a non-starter. It's not possible with our current constitutional framework. Outlawing guns doesn't solve the problem and there is evidence it actually makes the situation worse.
Personally, I DON'T run the Telco provided router and I suggest you not use it either. In fact, my ISP sent me a new router just last week and I don't plan to even unwrap it. Go buy your own, load your choice of open source firmware on it and leave the ISP's router in the box.
If you are REQUIRED to run the ISP's router, put your own router *behind* it and hide your whole network from your ISP either by using NAT or have a very strict firewall rule set (or both). (I.E create a DMZ and put your network behind it).
As in all of life, it depends. It depends on what you want your router to actually do...
Personally, I use OpenWRT on a couple of WNDR4300's that I picked up off of E-Bay over time, but I went with this router because it was CHEAP and had a VLAN capable switch. Even though I use this device, I'd not suggest it to others because currently the OpenWRT build for it is something you have to do on your own, not that it's hard, it's just time consuming.
But more to your question.. How do you know what hardware is best supported in OpenWRT? I suggest the following: First, check the supported hard ware list and make sure your exact hardware is there and shows that it's supported. Then make sure there are understandable installation instructions and that there is a build provided for your device. Finally, take a look at the device's forums and poke around to find out what kinds of problems other people are having with the hardware. In short, investigate the issues, use your favorite search engine, go look it up.
That's OK, we will just assemble them overseas and ship direct.
You can only delay a determined attacker's entry, you cannot stop it with any lock.
Real security requires multiple layers and techniques. Yea, you need good locks that are hard to finesse open, containers which are difficult to breach when locked, but you also need to provide surveillance which is regularly monitored using things like motion detectors, video cameras, actual guards walking by, in order to catch attackers before they can breach the container. Thus, you will find that safes are classified by how long it takes to brute force them open by a knowledgeable attacker and are routinely tested by digging out the drills, hammers, torches and stethoscopes to make sure they meet standards..
Ever heard of a home owners association created by deed restrictions? They are EXACTLY what you describe, and they obviously exist.
Look, there are decency limits of what you can do in public enshrined in law, so apparently there exists enough reason to put limits on public activity beyond safety. Even in New York City in Times Square they have specific rules about how one must dress which are more about not offending the majority of the tourists who frequent the landmark. So YES it's about how things appear, but it's also about the public good in some ways too so you cannot focus too sharply on just one part of this.
Locks mealy reduce temptation by putting a token obstacle in the way. Most of us have a working conscience that will prevent us from doing wrong, however many of us are subject to temptation as well. Putting even an easily bypassed obstacle in the way does three things. First, it causes the prospective criminal to have to make some extra effort, even if it's token, to actually commit the crime. Second, it induces a delay, again even if token, which allows extra time for the conscience to work. It also provides a sense that "getting caught" is more likely because it will take longer or leave evidence of tampering. In short they deter most people who generally want to do right, but provide little protection from folks who don't care.
The sad fact is we are all really criminals in the making. We all will naturally drift towards bad behavior unless some corrective force exists. Fear of being caught, guilt at doing wrong or some internal moral imperative are all that keep us off the path of self destruction. It's why kids need parents, and why the role of parents is to discipline children to shape their consciences and install moral values, to hopefully keep them off the self destructive path as adults.
You can make the argument that what two consenting adults do in private is THEIR business, and I'd be willing to entertain such a view if this was actually done in private. But it generally isn't. Oh sure, the actual act usually is, but the solicitation is decidedly public, at least on the few occasions when I've actually noticed such activity. So, come up with a way to keep it out of sight, and I'm prepared to leave each to their own.
However, the problem with this "activity" is that it encourages things like human trafficking, which is far from a victimless crime. I don't think a sufficiently strict regulatory structure can be built to prevent such abuse that doesn't cost a lot more than the current enforcement efforts based on current law. So I don't think your idea would really work out as well as you imagine. Girls will be trafficked and abused like they are now.
Remember, we've had quasi legal prostitution (still do in some places) in the past where the police colluded with brothel operators and it didn't work out all that great for the average worker, but made boatloads of cash for the owners. Consider Chicago in the 1920's, I don't think we want to do that again.
Also, cue the lawsuit in 3... 2... 1...
I think THIS will be the eventual result. The city will loose it's shirt if it tries this..
Um.... I'm not sure what's worse, paying an attorney or living with a woman who doesn't trust you, depends on the hourly rate I guess.... May I suggest that perhaps it is time for marriage counseling? Could be cheaper and might actually fix something...
You do realize that the saying "keeping honest people honest" is a common idiom, I didn't invent it.
This idiom is contradictory on it's face but it illustrates a truth about people and the human condition, nobody is perfect. You can obtain a large amount of compliance by placing even token limits on behavior. It's why we paint lines on roads, put locks on doors, label doors "Entry Only" (when by law they must function as an exit) and put DNS filters on company networks to keep NSFW surfing down. We encourage generally honest people to stay on the straight and narrow by offering even token amounts of effort to step over into "dishonest" behavior. None of my examples are any more than tokens and all are easily circumvented with little effort and serve to encourage imperfect people to do the right things because most of us actually have a conscience that we listen to and it screams loudly when it take effort to do wrong.
So, really, NOBODY is totally honest, but keeping the majority of people from being dishonest doesn't usually take much.... Which if you think about the idiom, is a clever illustration of the concept, even if it has logical consistency issues because none of us are perfect..
How to pick a lock using a pick (as in pick and shovel)
The Marines would use a 12 ga shotgun
Or a well placed foot can open a door, a window, even some walls..... Brute force is usually effective and quick. No real story in that. IF you really want in, there isn't much a $10 lock is going to do to stop you, only now you can open this lock, without the key, without destroying anything in 10 seconds...
Actually this technique does not damage the lock. It's more of a finesse technique, where you bump the lock in the correct way to overcome the force of a small internal spring to push the shackle locking pin out of the way so you can slide it open.
So, the AC is right, better lock designs might be a good idea.... But, alas it's a fool that thinks a $10 padlock is going to afford you much security. It's really only going to keep honest folk honest because they are too easy to brute force with bolt cutters, bump keys, lock picking tools etc...