Is it really going to matter who's in the White House? Aside from their frat-boy-like competition, I see little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans these days.
The only reason I'm voting for Kerry is in the hopes of deadlocking the government for the next four years. It's pretty fucking sad when you think the best result possible is the hamstringing of your government, to keep it from further eroding your rights, screwing up the economy, and passing another hundred thousand senseless laws.
What a load of SHIT. If you are qualified, if you know what you are doing, you are willing to learn, and you are humble enough to realize that "skilled" doesn't mean "can type and read slashdot" you will have little trouble getting work.
That's a good one. It's nice to see that only those deficient of character are the ones who can't get a job. I guess that means that all the unemployed out there are nothing more than slacker wastrels unfit to breed.
You wouldn't happen to be a Social Darwinist, would you?
Like it or not, that work ethic has made us the most powerful economy in the history of the world. So no matter what you might think, we're obviously doing SOMETHING right, and more right than anyone else.
I was hired because I was a good student, because I had decent (in a relative sense!) networking skills and because I was perserverant.
And let's not forget plain, old-fashioned luck. The successful always like to pretend that luck had nothing to do with their success, then blame (either directly or indirectly) everyone else for their failures on lack of character.
But Lady Luck walks hand in hand with you every moment of every day of your life. Sometimes she helps you get a job, sometimes she pushes you in front of a bus; but she's always there, whether you believe in her or not.
You're missing a big piece of the picture here. Putting aside the fact that America isn't a free market and hasn't been for quite some time, let's pretend for a moment that the entire world - every single country - is happily following Adam Smith's theory as closely as possible.
What happens? The overall wealth of the entire world rises, probably markedly. The system as a whole benefits from free market economics. Let me repeat that: the system AS A WHOLE benefits from free market economics.
This DOES NOT MEAN that EVERY NATION benefits from this situation. All free market economics guarrantees is that the world, taken as a whole, will be wealthier than it was before. Some areas will see their wealth increase by vast amounts; others by lesser amounts; and some areas will actually see their wealth DECLINE. But when you add them all up, the world - as a whole - will be wealthier.
The free market doesn't distribute wealth fairly nor equally, nor should it. That's what socialism - the antithesis of the free market - tries to do. It could very well be that even if every nation in the world were as close to the free market as possible, that the U.S. could end up being one of the losers while many other nations wind up being the big winners.
The free market doesn't guarrantee an increase in wealth for every part of the system, just for the system overall. Smith himself mentioned this but saw it as a good thing, standing apart from national interests to give a (mostly) objective rendering of his theory.
As an American I'm concerned with the welfare of myself and my fellow citizens first and foremost, and this only makes sense. If I were more concerned about Nigeria, it would behoove me to move to Nigeria and become a citizen of that country, since I'm putting Nigerian interests before that of any other country. But seeing as how I'm an American and I don't have any hankering at all to be a Nigerian, my primary focus is on increasing the wealth of AMERICA. It would be incredibly stupid of me to sacrifice my own rational self-interest - along with that of my countrymen, my relatives, my friends, and my children - to argue for free-market economics in a situation where America stands to lose and others stand to gain. Deliberately depriving yourself, your friends, your family, and your chilren of opportunities, shipping them overseas for others to take advantage of, isn't 'altruism'; it's foolishness bordering on the criminal (or the insane).
Oddly enough, both the Democrats and the Republicans argue that this is a good thing and that we do all this in accordance with the 'free market' (again, despite the fact that America isn't much of a free market). That selling out American workers is fine and dandy because it upholds the mantra 'free market', and that in some magical fashion all the jobs lost will eventually be made up through the invention of new technologies. In the interim between the old economy and the imaginary new one which has yet to come, we lose more than 2 million jobs, 1.1 million of which are replaced by jobs which pay nearly $9,000 less than the ones which were lost. Unemployment is still higher than it's been since the recession year of 1983, but so many workers have been off the unemployment rolls for so long the government no longer counts them - and therefore, in some bizarre bureaucratic fashion, they're no longer unemployed.
(How all of this innovation is supposed to occur under the new IP laws is beyond me, but that's a discussion for the next RIAA/MPAA/Disney news item.)
As the parent poster mentioned, the situation becomes even worse when you embark on free market economics with nations that themselves don't practice anything like the free market. Massive government intervention along with vastly lower standards of living almost assures movement of jobs from the free market (or pseudo-free market) nations to the non-free market nations. Exactly what we're seeing right now, actually.
That's the sound of the rabid environmentalist shouting about the 'damage' that wind turbines will do to their god, er, the Earth. No matter what the power generation scheme, no matter how minimal the impact, the radicals in the environmentalist movement will claim that this man-made contraption is evil and must be abandoned in order to 'save' the ecosystem.
Apart from fission, wind is just about the cleanest power-generating system we can devise (fusion not being even remotely practical yet). It's even cleaner than solar, since the process used to manufacture solar cells is quite a bit dirtier than what's required to build the wind turbines (although it's better than it was 20 years ago).
Sometimes I think the environmentalists are the most reactionary of us all: they don't just want technology to stop in it's tracks, they want to reverse it until all of us are once again living as hunter-gatherers. Well, those that survive the loss of technology, anyway, since about 5.5 billion of us would die of starvation after giving up the 'evils' of agriculture....
What environmental damage? Some dead birds? Big deal - house cats kill more than a billion birds every year in America alone. What wind farms would do would be insignificant in comparison to the damage done by irresponsible pet owners.
Well, that's not exactly true. In times of excess energy production you could pump water into an artificial lake at the top of a hill. In times of deficit, you can let the water out through a power-generating dam. It isn't direct storage and there's loss both ways, but it's better than nothing.
...that they'll GPL their source, or use a license anywhere close to the GPL. From the article is sounds like they're going to 'share-source' their stuff in the Microsoft fashion, then use doublespeak to call it 'open source'.
I doubt anything they call 'open source' will legally be able to be used in Linux.
At best, it doesn't matter either way. At worse, it actually interferes with quality if these programmers are slaves to rigid release schedules, feature creep (often demanded by marketing), etc.
This isn't exclusive to os development. Getting paid is motivation for getting a job; but getting paid is rarely motivation for *doing good work*. We can see this in all sorts of companies, engaged in all kinds of different endeavors.
For many people there's a very real disconnect between these two concepts. What it boils down to is "doing good ENOUGH work" to keep the job, which often amounts to a pretty mediocre performance.
Unless you're some sort of fanatically loyal Intel customer the better that AMD does the more likely it is that Intel will produce improved products to compete. Unlike MS, Intel isn't in a position to force its competitors into bankruptcy through illegal monopoly practices, and Intel doesn't have what it takes to buy AMD out.
I only wish there were a half-dozen major players in the chip market, rather than just two. Don't get me wrong, I've chosen AMD over Intel for years now and have been quite happy with the results (despite the bizarre brand-loyalty FUD that some Intel customers start screeching the moment they hear the initials "AMD"). But six different companies have a better chance of coming up with innovative products than just two, at least most of the time.
So as a customer I wish both Intel and AMD heaps of success, if only so both will remain in the market competing with one another. It's better for me, it's better for you - it's better for everyone except a few at the top of either corporation who long for an MS-style monopoly.
At least with a boycott, they can't force you to consume.
They already do that in Canada by levying a 'copy tax', whether or not you actually intend to download movies or music.
Do you really think that the RIAA/MPAA, faced with declining sales here in the U.S., won't get Congress to pass a new 'copy tax' levied on each and every one of us whether we download or not? Perhaps a 'fee' attached to your monthly broadband payment?
That's surely the next step. They'll scream that broadband access encourages piracy, and demand their 'cut' of the broadband gravy train. And we will ALL pay whether we like it or not, because our supposed 'representatives' will force us to pay or forego broadband altogether.
"Piracy" is what happens when you go to an overhyped movie and come out wondering "what the fuck happened to my money, and why do I feel like I've been given a good reaming?"
Ah, yet another anti-gun nut. Why don't you try to dispute the statistics of the studies I did you give you references to (if not links), all of which confirm those numbers or suggest even higher ones?
Let's see you do it, fanatic. Really. Love to see you try. Better anti-gun freaks than you have given it a shot and failed miserably.
On the brigher side, so long as the anti-gun lobby is made up of nuts like you, there isn't a chance in hell you'll ever overturn the 2nd Amendment. Not - a - chance. Looneytoons such as yourself do more to bolster the arguments of pro-gun folks than they could ever do on their own.
I'm safe in the knowledge that so long as you and your ilk are around to champion the anti-gun lobby, I'll forever have the right to bear arms.
The FBI doesn't keep statistics on "crimes prevented by gun ownership." Stop lying.
Typical slashdot reading comprehension. The FBI doesn't keep statistics on defensive gun use, nor did I ever say that they did. Re-read my original post and this time try to comprehend what it actually says.
The FBI commissioned a STUDY to determine the prevalence of defensive gun use, in response to independent studies which indicated it was much more common than the anti-gun lobby would like us to believe. The FBI sponsored study was a one-time job, and to my knowledge they have never again commissioned such a report. That might be because of the brouhaha the report kicked up among the anti-gun fanatics, who raised an unholy fuss over the whole thing.
From the FBI's own website back in, I believe, 1996. They referenced a report which at the time was available for download; it made a splash in the popular press, especially in the outrage expressed by the anti-gun fanatics.
However, if you can't find the particular report in question (it's no longer on the FBI website, but last time I looked for it it wasn't too difficult to track down), similar surveys (some more scientific than others) have confirmed these figures - and in fact cite defensive gun use as high as 2.5 million cases a year (well beyond the FBI's "200,000-800,000"). These studies have been conducted by the Field Institute in California; the State of Ohio, in Ohio; Peter Hart Research Associates for the entire Unites States; and the Cambridge Reports for the entire United States. IIRC there are around 15 confirming studies but I don't have them all at hand. I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one or two of these mentioned on the internet, and perhaps even be able to find an electronic copy of the paper study. I won't waste my time trying to find links; you should be able to do so yourself with the information I've provided to you (assuming you're actually interested in educating yourself).
And why don't you look at the stats that show those with a gun in their hand are more likely to be shot?
Now your turn. I've done a google search and can find no credible study backing up your claim. The only thing I found close to this was that certain inner-city black gang members were more likely to be shot if they were armed than when they were not, most likely because *they were more likely to engage in an armed conflict*. This had nothing whatsoever to do with criminal activity and victim defense.
Escalating a conflict with someone that is high on adrenaline (if not something illegal, or jonesing) is NOT a smart move.
According to a collection of studies done in various large cities (New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, to name just three) and released despite the strenuous objects of various police departments, you are much more likely to suffer minor injuries if you resist victimization by a criminal. However, you are also much more likey to SURVIVE victimization by a criminal, *especially if you are a woman*. So the passive acquiescence taught by many police departments is MORE likely to get you killed than active resistance.
This phenomenon is well-known among psychologists. Criminals look for prey to victimize; if the victim fights back and refuses to accept the role as prey, this changes the criminal's perspective of his intended victim from 'prey' to 'potentially dangerous predator'. If the criminal cannot subdue the victim in a short period of time he's likely to disengage and look for easier targets, where personal risk (real or perceived) is lower. Most criminals are cowards, remember.
A willing victim fits right into the role and invites abuse. So while it's indeed more likely that you won't be injured, it's also more likely that your acquiescene will encourage the criminal to become so violent that he'll end up killing you. Hence the statistic that if you fight back you're more likely to sustain minor injuries (cuts, bruises) but are also more likely to SURVIVE the encounter.
In any event, it's better to be armed than not. There's a reason why the majority of handgun owners in the United States now carry their firearms concealed *even though they don't have a license to do so*. There's a reason the largest and fast-growing gun purchasing demographic is women under the age of 35. It isn't baseless fear or, as the antigun lobby would have us believe, because we all crave to do murder in our hearts. It's because guns are an effective deterrant to victimization by criminals.
Assuming you know how to use the gun, and so does the criminal (most do not, by the way), the odds are roughly 50/50. I find this vastly superior to trusting my life to the criminal's good intentions.
a very big, territorial dog, and a gun in case the dog isn't an effective deterrent.
The FBI tells us that somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 crimes a year are prevented when the intended victim pulls a gun. The gun is only discharged in 1/10 of 1% of these instances, usually into the air and not at the criminal. So a gun is a very real deterrent, and the odds that you'll actually have to fire it at all are 1 in 1,000, if you're the target of a crime.
Most criminals are cowards. Most criminals will run if their victim is armed *even they're armed themselves*. Don't believe the claptrap that if you own a gun you'll get yourself involved in a shoot-out if you're the target of a criminal. The odds of that happening are extremely low.
Slashdot Mirror
Is it really going to matter who's in the White House? Aside from their frat-boy-like competition, I see little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans these days.
The only reason I'm voting for Kerry is in the hopes of deadlocking the government for the next four years. It's pretty fucking sad when you think the best result possible is the hamstringing of your government, to keep it from further eroding your rights, screwing up the economy, and passing another hundred thousand senseless laws.
Max
What a load of SHIT. If you are qualified, if you know what you are doing, you are willing to learn, and you are humble enough to realize that "skilled" doesn't mean "can type and read slashdot" you will have little trouble getting work.
That's a good one. It's nice to see that only those deficient of character are the ones who can't get a job. I guess that means that all the unemployed out there are nothing more than slacker wastrels unfit to breed.
You wouldn't happen to be a Social Darwinist, would you?
Max
I think a lot of the difference is in work-ethic.
Like it or not, that work ethic has made us the most powerful economy in the history of the world. So no matter what you might think, we're obviously doing SOMETHING right, and more right than anyone else.
Max
I was hired because I was a good student, because I had decent (in a relative sense!) networking skills and because I was perserverant.
And let's not forget plain, old-fashioned luck. The successful always like to pretend that luck had nothing to do with their success, then blame (either directly or indirectly) everyone else for their failures on lack of character.
But Lady Luck walks hand in hand with you every moment of every day of your life. Sometimes she helps you get a job, sometimes she pushes you in front of a bus; but she's always there, whether you believe in her or not.
Max
You're missing a big piece of the picture here. Putting aside the fact that America isn't a free market and hasn't been for quite some time, let's pretend for a moment that the entire world - every single country - is happily following Adam Smith's theory as closely as possible.
What happens? The overall wealth of the entire world rises, probably markedly. The system as a whole benefits from free market economics. Let me repeat that: the system AS A WHOLE benefits from free market economics.
This DOES NOT MEAN that EVERY NATION benefits from this situation. All free market economics guarrantees is that the world, taken as a whole, will be wealthier than it was before. Some areas will see their wealth increase by vast amounts; others by lesser amounts; and some areas will actually see their wealth DECLINE. But when you add them all up, the world - as a whole - will be wealthier.
The free market doesn't distribute wealth fairly nor equally, nor should it. That's what socialism - the antithesis of the free market - tries to do. It could very well be that even if every nation in the world were as close to the free market as possible, that the U.S. could end up being one of the losers while many other nations wind up being the big winners.
The free market doesn't guarrantee an increase in wealth for every part of the system, just for the system overall. Smith himself mentioned this but saw it as a good thing, standing apart from national interests to give a (mostly) objective rendering of his theory.
As an American I'm concerned with the welfare of myself and my fellow citizens first and foremost, and this only makes sense. If I were more concerned about Nigeria, it would behoove me to move to Nigeria and become a citizen of that country, since I'm putting Nigerian interests before that of any other country. But seeing as how I'm an American and I don't have any hankering at all to be a Nigerian, my primary focus is on increasing the wealth of AMERICA. It would be incredibly stupid of me to sacrifice my own rational self-interest - along with that of my countrymen, my relatives, my friends, and my children - to argue for free-market economics in a situation where America stands to lose and others stand to gain. Deliberately depriving yourself, your friends, your family, and your chilren of opportunities, shipping them overseas for others to take advantage of, isn't 'altruism'; it's foolishness bordering on the criminal (or the insane).
Oddly enough, both the Democrats and the Republicans argue that this is a good thing and that we do all this in accordance with the 'free market' (again, despite the fact that America isn't much of a free market). That selling out American workers is fine and dandy because it upholds the mantra 'free market', and that in some magical fashion all the jobs lost will eventually be made up through the invention of new technologies. In the interim between the old economy and the imaginary new one which has yet to come, we lose more than 2 million jobs, 1.1 million of which are replaced by jobs which pay nearly $9,000 less than the ones which were lost. Unemployment is still higher than it's been since the recession year of 1983, but so many workers have been off the unemployment rolls for so long the government no longer counts them - and therefore, in some bizarre bureaucratic fashion, they're no longer unemployed.
(How all of this innovation is supposed to occur under the new IP laws is beyond me, but that's a discussion for the next RIAA/MPAA/Disney news item.)
As the parent poster mentioned, the situation becomes even worse when you embark on free market economics with nations that themselves don't practice anything like the free market. Massive government intervention along with vastly lower standards of living almost assures movement of jobs from the free market (or pseudo-free market) nations to the non-free market nations. Exactly what we're seeing right now, actually.
The only way to stem the tide is
That's the sound of the rabid environmentalist shouting about the 'damage' that wind turbines will do to their god, er, the Earth. No matter what the power generation scheme, no matter how minimal the impact, the radicals in the environmentalist movement will claim that this man-made contraption is evil and must be abandoned in order to 'save' the ecosystem.
Apart from fission, wind is just about the cleanest power-generating system we can devise (fusion not being even remotely practical yet). It's even cleaner than solar, since the process used to manufacture solar cells is quite a bit dirtier than what's required to build the wind turbines (although it's better than it was 20 years ago).
Sometimes I think the environmentalists are the most reactionary of us all: they don't just want technology to stop in it's tracks, they want to reverse it until all of us are once again living as hunter-gatherers. Well, those that survive the loss of technology, anyway, since about 5.5 billion of us would die of starvation after giving up the 'evils' of agriculture....
Max
What environmental damage? Some dead birds? Big deal - house cats kill more than a billion birds every year in America alone. What wind farms would do would be insignificant in comparison to the damage done by irresponsible pet owners.
Max
our storage capacity for electricity is zero.
Well, that's not exactly true. In times of excess energy production you could pump water into an artificial lake at the top of a hill. In times of deficit, you can let the water out through a power-generating dam. It isn't direct storage and there's loss both ways, but it's better than nothing.
Max
How about "I've already paid, now fix the fucking bugs!".
Max
Company gives preferntial treatment to its higher profit customers!
Well, that certainly explains the actions of various government bodies.
Max
...that they'll GPL their source, or use a license anywhere close to the GPL. From the article is sounds like they're going to 'share-source' their stuff in the Microsoft fashion, then use doublespeak to call it 'open source'.
I doubt anything they call 'open source' will legally be able to be used in Linux.
Max
At best, it doesn't matter either way. At worse, it actually interferes with quality if these programmers are slaves to rigid release schedules, feature creep (often demanded by marketing), etc.
This isn't exclusive to os development. Getting paid is motivation for getting a job; but getting paid is rarely motivation for *doing good work*. We can see this in all sorts of companies, engaged in all kinds of different endeavors.
For many people there's a very real disconnect between these two concepts. What it boils down to is "doing good ENOUGH work" to keep the job, which often amounts to a pretty mediocre performance.
Max
Unless you're some sort of fanatically loyal Intel customer the better that AMD does the more likely it is that Intel will produce improved products to compete. Unlike MS, Intel isn't in a position to force its competitors into bankruptcy through illegal monopoly practices, and Intel doesn't have what it takes to buy AMD out.
I only wish there were a half-dozen major players in the chip market, rather than just two. Don't get me wrong, I've chosen AMD over Intel for years now and have been quite happy with the results (despite the bizarre brand-loyalty FUD that some Intel customers start screeching the moment they hear the initials "AMD"). But six different companies have a better chance of coming up with innovative products than just two, at least most of the time.
So as a customer I wish both Intel and AMD heaps of success, if only so both will remain in the market competing with one another. It's better for me, it's better for you - it's better for everyone except a few at the top of either corporation who long for an MS-style monopoly.
Max
At least with a boycott, they can't force you to consume.
They already do that in Canada by levying a 'copy tax', whether or not you actually intend to download movies or music.
Do you really think that the RIAA/MPAA, faced with declining sales here in the U.S., won't get Congress to pass a new 'copy tax' levied on each and every one of us whether we download or not? Perhaps a 'fee' attached to your monthly broadband payment?
That's surely the next step. They'll scream that broadband access encourages piracy, and demand their 'cut' of the broadband gravy train. And we will ALL pay whether we like it or not, because our supposed 'representatives' will force us to pay or forego broadband altogether.
Max
Don't forget 7:
Companies by government thugs to pass laws and pound on evil pirates, thieves, and other never-do-wells.
Max
"Piracy" is what happens when you go to an overhyped movie and come out wondering "what the fuck happened to my money, and why do I feel like I've been given a good reaming?"
Max
Ah, yet another anti-gun nut. Why don't you try to dispute the statistics of the studies I did you give you references to (if not links), all of which confirm those numbers or suggest even higher ones?
Let's see you do it, fanatic. Really. Love to see you try. Better anti-gun freaks than you have given it a shot and failed miserably.
On the brigher side, so long as the anti-gun lobby is made up of nuts like you, there isn't a chance in hell you'll ever overturn the 2nd Amendment. Not - a - chance. Looneytoons such as yourself do more to bolster the arguments of pro-gun folks than they could ever do on their own.
I'm safe in the knowledge that so long as you and your ilk are around to champion the anti-gun lobby, I'll forever have the right to bear arms.
Max
In fact it's exactly because criminals are cowards that they would fire. They would get startled, scared and instinctively fire.
Back it up with credible statistics, asshole. If you can.
Max
The FBI doesn't keep statistics on "crimes prevented by gun ownership." Stop lying.
Typical slashdot reading comprehension. The FBI doesn't keep statistics on defensive gun use, nor did I ever say that they did. Re-read my original post and this time try to comprehend what it actually says.
The FBI commissioned a STUDY to determine the prevalence of defensive gun use, in response to independent studies which indicated it was much more common than the anti-gun lobby would like us to believe. The FBI sponsored study was a one-time job, and to my knowledge they have never again commissioned such a report. That might be because of the brouhaha the report kicked up among the anti-gun fanatics, who raised an unholy fuss over the whole thing.
So no, I'm not lying. You're just an idiot.
Max
Where the heck did you get those stats?
From the FBI's own website back in, I believe, 1996. They referenced a report which at the time was available for download; it made a splash in the popular press, especially in the outrage expressed by the anti-gun fanatics.
However, if you can't find the particular report in question (it's no longer on the FBI website, but last time I looked for it it wasn't too difficult to track down), similar surveys (some more scientific than others) have confirmed these figures - and in fact cite defensive gun use as high as 2.5 million cases a year (well beyond the FBI's "200,000-800,000"). These studies have been conducted by the Field Institute in California; the State of Ohio, in Ohio; Peter Hart Research Associates for the entire Unites States; and the Cambridge Reports for the entire United States. IIRC there are around 15 confirming studies but I don't have them all at hand. I'm sure you'll be able to find at least one or two of these mentioned on the internet, and perhaps even be able to find an electronic copy of the paper study. I won't waste my time trying to find links; you should be able to do so yourself with the information I've provided to you (assuming you're actually interested in educating yourself).
And why don't you look at the stats that show those with a gun in their hand are more likely to be shot?
Now your turn. I've done a google search and can find no credible study backing up your claim. The only thing I found close to this was that certain inner-city black gang members were more likely to be shot if they were armed than when they were not, most likely because *they were more likely to engage in an armed conflict*. This had nothing whatsoever to do with criminal activity and victim defense.
Escalating a conflict with someone that is high on adrenaline (if not something illegal, or jonesing) is NOT a smart move.
According to a collection of studies done in various large cities (New York, Philadelphia and Los Angeles, to name just three) and released despite the strenuous objects of various police departments, you are much more likely to suffer minor injuries if you resist victimization by a criminal. However, you are also much more likey to SURVIVE victimization by a criminal, *especially if you are a woman*. So the passive acquiescence taught by many police departments is MORE likely to get you killed than active resistance.
This phenomenon is well-known among psychologists. Criminals look for prey to victimize; if the victim fights back and refuses to accept the role as prey, this changes the criminal's perspective of his intended victim from 'prey' to 'potentially dangerous predator'. If the criminal cannot subdue the victim in a short period of time he's likely to disengage and look for easier targets, where personal risk (real or perceived) is lower. Most criminals are cowards, remember.
A willing victim fits right into the role and invites abuse. So while it's indeed more likely that you won't be injured, it's also more likely that your acquiescene will encourage the criminal to become so violent that he'll end up killing you. Hence the statistic that if you fight back you're more likely to sustain minor injuries (cuts, bruises) but are also more likely to SURVIVE the encounter.
In any event, it's better to be armed than not. There's a reason why the majority of handgun owners in the United States now carry their firearms concealed *even though they don't have a license to do so*. There's a reason the largest and fast-growing gun purchasing demographic is women under the age of 35. It isn't baseless fear or, as the antigun lobby would have us believe, because we all crave to do murder in our hearts. It's because guns are an effective deterrant to victimization by criminals.
Max
Assuming you know how to use the gun, and so does the criminal (most do not, by the way), the odds are roughly 50/50. I find this vastly superior to trusting my life to the criminal's good intentions.
Max
a very big, territorial dog, and a gun in case the dog isn't an effective deterrent.
The FBI tells us that somewhere between 200,000 and 800,000 crimes a year are prevented when the intended victim pulls a gun. The gun is only discharged in 1/10 of 1% of these instances, usually into the air and not at the criminal. So a gun is a very real deterrent, and the odds that you'll actually have to fire it at all are 1 in 1,000, if you're the target of a crime.
Most criminals are cowards. Most criminals will run if their victim is armed *even they're armed themselves*. Don't believe the claptrap that if you own a gun you'll get yourself involved in a shoot-out if you're the target of a criminal. The odds of that happening are extremely low.
Max
It doesn't matter a whit whether or not *you* think it's a good idea. It isn't *your* money. That's the only issue of any relevance.
Max
If we go straight to hanging I'm willing to bet it would work wonders as an inducement for honesty and true public service for the survivors.
Max
...there's no such thing as too much porn.
Max