You're not incredulous at all. Let me start by suggesting that you read the links I provided above - those were all cases where civilians who were armed were able to protect their lives with their firearms. The most recent research by the FBI indicates that there are many, many more incidents - as many as hundreds per day - where the mere display of a firearm by an "intended victim" makes a criminal change his mind very quickly. A taser does not have the same "scare factor" as a firearm.
I can't speak in generalizations about concealed carry permit holders, but I can talk about those whom I know. When you get a license to carry a lethal weapon, your attitude and manner changes. You look to avoid dangerous situations. You don't let stuff bother you so much any more. But most importantly, you become FAR more aware of your surroundings. The posters in this threadlet who indicated that a firearm won't help you much in a mugging are correct to a certain extent - someone who surprises you by jumping out and demanding money at gunpoint is a bad situation. But you tend to watch people a lot more, on the street, to ascertain if they are a threat or not... you look for people hiding, etc. So those surprises are probably less likely to happen to you.
You could make a conscious effort to have the same kinds of mannerisms without carrying a firearm - and that's a great way to conduct yourself even if you don't want the responsibility of having a deadly weapon on you.
"A taser will still knock someone out, even if they're carrying an assault rifle."
Really? How do you propose to get close enough to tase someone without getting shot? If you're in a situation where you have to get away from a threat with a firearm, the ideal situation is to retreat or hide so they are no longer a threat. But if you're forced to defend yourself, a taser won't allow you to defend against a firearm unless the firearm is empty.
And also keep in mind that the modus operandi is *not* "shoot anyone who gives me trouble". The modus operandi is "escape from danger if possible, but if you are forced to defend yourself against a deadly outcome then at least you have means to do so."
Or how about this one, PublicLurker? Do you really think a 70 year old grandma needs a penis enlargement? http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/10/23/Horse_shoot.ART_ART_10-23-09_A1_SGFF2MR.html
Sorry to spoil your generalization, publiclurker, but men in my family have penises. We don't need enhancements.
Think of it this way. While I never wish this on anyone, let's talk again after you've been mugged at gunpoint. Then you'll see clearly where a firearm is not a penis poofer but a device that allows you to choose your life over that of your mugger's.
Do you think this guy was thinking about the size of his penis when he defended himself against a mugger who shot at him? http://www.examiner.com/self-defense-in-national/armed-citizen-shoots-a-violent-mugger-self-defense
How about this guy? Do you think he needed a bigger penis or a way to defend himself against a hoodlum? http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/04/28/news/local/479034.txt
Or this one? http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Megerle.htm
Please don't project your own phallic challenges when you're trying to make a snide remark and inaccurate generalization.
What do these, uh, "heroes" hope to do or defend against? Do they *really* think that slingshot is useful for *anything* in an urban setting?
What's going to happen when one of them encounters someone who is really serious, and the "hero" finds himself on the wrong end of a.45? You'll need some serious shielding and defensive moves for that. A taser or even a light weapon won't work here. And then if you use your 95mw laser to blind the perpetrator he will come back and sue you for all you're worth.
Or what happens when there's an undercover cop making an arrest and one of these yahoos mistakes what he's seeing and tries to "intervene"?
Seriously people... the best thing to do nowadays is to get a concealed carry permit, carry a weapon you've practice on, and avoid trouble at all costs. Stuff like this is just ridiculous.
I've lived in the boonies for the last 7 years or so... and most of what you noted varies greatly by place. In my case it isn't as bad as you note.
However: "crappy medical care. big cities have the good hospitals and doctors" +1 you are correct about this!
The hospitals in rural areas - even those in cities with populations of ~20k - tend to kill people for the stupidest reasons... the kill rate is far higher than that of big city hospitals. And since the coroner is a doctor who works for the hospital, they falsify the death certificate as to time and cause of death, so as to not reflect badly on the hospital.
You think 1.5hr is a long commute? I do that 3x a week. Only because my employer is funny about people working remotely more often than that.
But where I live it's just like Cape Cod. I have a view of the lake off my back deck, an exquisitely starry sky at night, my choice of high speed internet, and 2,800 sf is less than a grand a month in mortgage + taxes. So yeah, it's worth it.
There are no words to describe how monumentally disturbing and generally fucked up your idea is. I sincerely hope that you never have to go through what I'm going through now - but if you ever do, you will go back and purge any semblance of this "electronic impersonator" idea from your mind.
Families of the deceased want to remember their family members AS THEY ACTUALLY EXISTED. A fucked-up markov chain impersonation would not come anywhere close to doing what you think it will... instead, it will cause pain, further un-needed grief, and lots of other feelings, the nature of which you have NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT unless you've lost someone close to you. I'm not talking about a "friend", I'm talking about someone with whom you've intimately spent a third of your life.
This is because you're using MySQL to develop on. MySQL allows all manner of illegal hostnames and other bad programming practices in the name of "making things easier" for people who don't know any better.
If you developed using Postgres, or another more compliant database, most of these problems would go away.
"It is NOT an acceptable response in most Western 1st world nations to shoot and kill someone for a B&E under any circumstances. And if you're going to mention that they might be armed and its better to shoot first"
Here's what I said: "Hopefully, neutralization occurs when the burglar realizes you are armed and then flees - in this case, you would not shoot a fleeing burglar."
If you break into my house and I display a gun, you have a choice. You can run away, and I won't shoot you - I don't shoot a fleeing burglar. You can stay, but if you stay you've told me that you are intent to kill me, and I must defend my life.
Since I do not resort to ad-hominem attacks, I will say how strange it is to me to hear people who are not in the US say that they would not defend themselves if there was an intruder in their home, intent upon killing them.
The folks in your article obviously have fundamental problems with the way they handle themselves - probably the same kinds of folks who would run someone off the road with a vehicle.
"If I was a bad guy and I had bad intentions, I think I'd make sure I'd shoot to kill first."
The assumption that bad guys will always shoot first given an increase in the number of concealed carry permit holders is a fallacy. The statistics prove that does not happen. As I've said several tiems on this thread, generally, thiefs are not murderers. They want to steal and get away as quickly and quietly as possible, and being involved in a shootout does not contribue to this goal. At least, that's what the studies have shown.
"Genuine Need" - that is an astute observation, Dafing. Let's take a look at the things I can do with my car:
-go to work, the store, other utilitarian places
-go to play ball in the park
-race my car on a track
-Provide relaxation, if I am restoring an old car
...and my gun?
-defend against bad guys, either by scaring them or by making the grave and last-resort decison to use the weapon
-hunt small game, if I needed to
-hone my skills at sport shooting
-Provide relaxation, if I am restoring an old gun
I suppose that there are many more places I could go with my car, than things I would want to shoot at for fun. (Shooting for fun only occurs with paper targets in a specially-designed range)
I believe I answered the question in the other post, but I would feel safer with other licensed and trained individuals carrying guns. I honestly do not know - I have not considered whether or not I would rather live in an unarmed society.
"...the country with the most guns, and one of the most violent..."
Mexico is far more violent than we are, and they don't allow any kind of guns for civilians.
"If these people realise others have a pistol, I would logically assume they would make sure they have an equal or if possible "better" weapon."
But you are making a fundamental assumption that all thiefs wish to become murderers. There is a large difference between someone who wants to steal and someone who is willing to kill to succeed at being a thief. But not everyone here has a gun - so a thief can still pick a victim who is unlikely to be armed. Studies have been conducted by the FBI (our national police) where career criminals say that their biggest fear is being shot during the course of their escapades.
"Think about it, if you are in a public place, say a movie theatre, watching, oh, lets say Avatar (in 3D if it makes a difference), would you rather EVERYONE had a gun, or that NOBODY had a gun?"
That point is actually moot, because in most locales, you are not allowed to carry into movie theaters even if you have a license. But it's also not a valid test because there are lots of people who frequent movie theaters who are under the influence of narcotics and other drugs - and those people are not allowed to carry weapons, and for good reason. But given a crowd who was licensed and had the proper training, yes, it is preferable that everyone is armed rather than nobody being armed.
"I would also think that if you want to commit a crime, and you know that the police who oppose you are brutal, you would be more likely to do ANYTHING you can to stay free. And thus things could escalate rapidly."
That is an interesting thought experiment but that's not the way it happens for the most part. Again, you're grossly over-estimating the number of psychopaths who are willing to kill. They are out there but few and far between.
"If you think that you live in an unsafe area because of weapons, then why add more weapons into the equation? Its a sort of a Mutual Assured Destruction theory? At some time, you have to back down, and work on REDUCING the problem itself."
Why add more weapons into the equation? I'll flip it around and say, if I know that the bad guys have guns, why would I make myself a willing victim by refusing to be armed? "At some point work on REDUCING the problem..." That is not practical. It seems that every time a country that already has firearms tries to restrict them, violent crime goes up. Why? Because the criminals, who don't obey laws anyway, will keep their guns while the law abiding citizens turn their guns in. Look at Britain for an example of this. Also, Chicago and other high-crime areas of the U.S. have the strictest gun laws in the country. This is not coincidence.
You should also consider why Sweeden was not invaded during WWII. There were a number of reasons for this, political, economic (they supplied the Nazi's wth iron), but each and every Sweede had a government-provided rifle and knew how to use it. Trying to invade Sweeden would be a nightmare under these conditions.
"I find the idea of everyone being armed absolutely terrifying... mention seeing police with guns on every street...and the thought of even armed police gives me the creeps..."
You make a fundamntal error in your assumption; the error is assuming that the mere possession of a firearm makes an otherwise sane, calm individual into a psycopath who wants to shoot everybody up.
Here's a question for you. I am not sure if you drive a car where you are. If you do, then do you suddenly get the urge to mow down all of the pedestrians on the sidewalks when you're driving along the street? No? I didn't think so. A hunk of metal cannot, by itself, make an otherwise sane man insane.
I'm going to address your other comment separately, but I'll say this. To purchase a gun where I live, you are subject to a 'light' background check. If you have committed a felony, or any crime involving violence, escaping from police, or if you even have a protection order against you - you can't get a gun.
In order to be able to carry a gun with you, where I live, you need to get a license to do that. This license is a) easy to lose, b) expensive, and also carries with it a much more extensive background check. Those of us who have licenses do not want to lose them so we are always on our best behavior. We are more likely to walk away from confrontation and only escalate when it's certain that the bad guy is going to try to kill us.
Good Night.
Icebraining: "In a place were guns are allowed, a thieve is much more likely to get a gun himself and possibly shoot on sight, because he knows you might have a gun."
Actually, FBI studies have shown that the opposite is true: criminals *avoid* places where there's a higher chance that victims are carrying firearms. They look for places they know people won't be armed.
In most cases, a thief is not a murderer. A thief wants to steal and get away as soon as possible, and being involved in a shootout runs counter to those goals.
Santax... "Shooting an unarmed burglar is precisely the same."
No, it's not. If someone gives you a little push, you assume they are being an idiot and walk away.
If someone is brazen enough to break in to your house while it is occupied, you must assume they have the intent to injure or kill you, and act accordingly to neutralize the threat. Hopefully, neutralization occurs when the burglar realizes you are armed and then flees - in this case, you would not shoot a fleeing burglar.
Anonymous: "And barring all that, you missed his point about the "shooting someone just for trespassing.""
Wow. Just... wow. This illustrates the OP's view about empathy perfectly... it is a logical fallacy to assume that all, or even most, or even any small percentage of folks who own guns automatically want to "shoot you if you step foot on my property again". You are absolutely correct - anyone who shoots someone merely for stepping foot on property SHOULD be arrested, and they often ARE.
Santax: "(The lies about WMD, the lies about drugs), (people telling you that is perfectly normal to own a gun, that it is normal to shoot at someone just for trespassing/burglary)"
The two categroies of events have nothing to do with one another. I'm not sure what environment you live in. Perhaps you're in an urban area where, if something is going wrong, you are pefectly able to dial 911 with 99% certainty and a police officer is just two minutes away. But not all of us live in those areas.
Here's the thought process behind many of those law-abiding citizens who legally carry firearms.
Any time you have to use any implement in a life-threatening emergency, whether it be a fire extinguisher to put out a fire or an implement to make a human threat to your life stop being a threat, it is a life-changing event for you and should be avoided at all costs.
But here’s the reality. Out where we live, at any one time there may be between 1 and 4 Sheriff deputies covering the entire 527 square miles of the county. In the neighboring county, if you call 911 at 3AM on a Tuesday morning, you will get the CELL PHONE of the on-call Deputy. Maybe he’s awake, maybe not.
There have been a high number of burglaries in this area – two involving a homeowner being shot, one of those a deadly shooting.
If you hear a knock at your door and see a guy with a 12-gauge and ski mask on your porch, the cops may be 20 minutes away. You need a way to make this person stop being a threat immediately. If he sees that you have a certain implement of minor destruction (IMD) and runs away, great! Your goal of making the person stop being a threat has succeeded. It is a gravely unfortunate circumstance, however, that in some cases merely displaying IMD’s does not work – the person is too intent on getting your possessions and won’t hesitate to use whatever force is needed. In these cases the only way to stop the threat is to use equal force and hope for the best... knowing full well that there are heavy legal and psychological burdens to deal with after the fact. You’ll (hopefully) still be alive afterward, but as I said, these situations should be avoided at all costs.
It's a very heavy decision to make, possibly having to take the life of another to preserve my own life... but at least with a weapon I am able to make that decision.
Santax, around here there aren't many residents who *do not* own a gun; thus the "normal" mode of living is to own a gun. And if someone is intent on breaking in to your house, you do not have the luxury of a full psychological profile to determine if that person is going to kill you or not - you have to neutralize the threat or accept a very high risk of being killed. Whether "neutralize" means the guy is scared away when you pull your gun, or "neutralize" means you have to shoot until the threat stops, that's up to the burglar.
This has nothing to do with empathy, nor the lies that were told about WMD or are told about drugs. I'll put it this way... I don't eat meat because I'm empathetic towards the plight of factory-farmed animals. However, since I don't burglarize, my empathy towards those who may be intent upon breaking into my house and killing me is non-existent. I have two friends who feel the same way.
I've been stuck in the ICU's of local hospitals for the past month in a similar circumstance. I've been doing bills and banking from my system at home via FreeNX.
If a 'smoking exclusion' was not in the contract, then they lied to you when they sold the contract, plain and simple.
Sue them in small claims court for the value of the computer. If your state is like Ohio and they award 3x damages for a breach of consumer protection act (a breach of contract might trigger this), you could get a nice upgrade.
If you don't want to go that far at least complain to your state's attorney general.
I realize that the following is a generalization, and there are always exceptions. In this discussion, I consider "White Collar" to be a real university such as Ohio State or Carnegie-Mellon - an institution rooted in education and not profit. "Blue Collar" is a technical institute such as DeVry, ITT Tech, or one of the for-profit online schools.
I theorize that the level of thought of a particular developer largely depends on his or her experience and "adventures" before school - and the selection of school follows this pattern.
Someone who ends up being an excellent developer was likely down the right path before college. Furthermore, if someone who is traveling this path accidentally attends a Blue Collar school, they will quickly ascertain that such a school is 'below their level' and a waste of money, and leave.
Why does this matter? In a real University, the classes are challenging enough that folks who are "just in it for the money" will drop out. The folks who love what they are doing will enjoy the challenge and persist.
The "Blue Collar" schools are motivated by money (continued payment of tuition) and just getting folks through the program, so their classes are less likely to be challenging, and therefore more folks who are "just in it for the money" will pass through. Because the classes are less challenging, the quality of the education is lower. The wrong motivation and lower quality of education mean an employee who will make more mistakes and create less efficient software.
Furthermore, someone with another degree, either as a full degree or a minor - or someone with CS as a minor - will do a better job, because such a person is more apt to look at problems from many different angles instead of just the "CS" angle.
I base these assertions on my own experience. After one trimester at DeVry, I started to get disturbed with some of the things being said by seniors. I moved to a real school and never looked back.
"There is nothing wrong with SharePoint. It has a reasonable learning curve, you just have to invest a little bit of time into actually learning how to productively use it."
I spent 4 weeks learning about SharePoint. There are two tiers of functionality: that you can get from plain jane Sharepoint, and that you get from MOSS (Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server).
Unless you fork over the money for MOSS, you do not get any functionality over what you would get from Plone, an open source product. As an added bonus, Plone is far easier for non-technical folks to use than Sharepoint - so instead of dedicating IT resources to creating sites, you push that cost center off to the users and free up your resources for something else.
MOSS is prohibitively expensive. For 2500 seats, you're looking at around $400k to start plus $130k/year.
For (far less than) that amount, you could hire a developer to add MOSS-like features to Plone. The MOSS features really don't produce enough ROI to justify the expense, unless you are looking at adding third party BI applications (many of which require MOSS) that may or may not produce ROI by their own merits.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice or interpretation of any law, but here's what I would do based on the laws of Ohio.
Because their product is offered in Ohio, Ohio courts have venue over their actions. Furthermore, Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure expand venue to small claims courts.
Ohio has a law against lying in advertisements. By not specifically indicating that they only publish positive reviews, the lack of negative reviews could be construed in this situation as lying. In many cases, violations of this act reward three times damages.
If the laws in your state are configured similarly, then just sue them in small claims court for three times actual damages.
It's up to you, of course, to make this determination (if it will work based on your state's laws) and write your complaint appropriately. Having said that, I was successful in collecting an amount greater than damages in a similar circumstance involving a promise made by an out of state auto warranty company by using this method.
>>>What happens if the brakes on your car fail and... accident?
What if I acquire Swine Flu and die before I pass my genes to my kids... if my house catches fire and turns me into a charcoal critter? Life is risky. Face facts. "If you can't handle a bloody nose maybe you should have stayed home."
But there's a problem. In each of those cases, the entire risk falls on your shoulders - if any of those bad things occur, it's only you who suffers. In the case of car insurance, you are pushing a higher risk onto those who are driving around you. If something bad occurs in your car, then there are others besides yourself who will have to deal with the consequences. Your idealism is increasing the risk born to others.
>>>Do you have deep enough pockets to reimburse the other drivers
Yes because all the money I did not spend making the Insurance company's CEO rich is in my bank... Insurance is just a scam to suck money from your wallet to the CEO.
Ok, let me get this straight. You're willing to risk, say, half a million dollars of your own money simply to avoid paying the insurance company $1200 per year? How does that make sense? It would make sense if the $1200 were to go to meteorite insurance (or insurance for something else just as unlikely to occur), but car-related calamities occur much more often, no matter how safe we like to think we are.
You should really put your money where your mouth is and drop your insurance altogether. In its place, just buy a surety bond from the state - in Ohio IIRC if you buy a $30k surety bond you are considered to be 'self insured'. After all, if you don't want to give your money to the insurance CEO's you shouldn't give *any* money to the insurance CEO's.
Slashdot Mirror
Ruke,
You're not incredulous at all. Let me start by suggesting that you read the links I provided above - those were all cases where civilians who were armed were able to protect their lives with their firearms. The most recent research by the FBI indicates that there are many, many more incidents - as many as hundreds per day - where the mere display of a firearm by an "intended victim" makes a criminal change his mind very quickly. A taser does not have the same "scare factor" as a firearm.
I can't speak in generalizations about concealed carry permit holders, but I can talk about those whom I know. When you get a license to carry a lethal weapon, your attitude and manner changes. You look to avoid dangerous situations. You don't let stuff bother you so much any more. But most importantly, you become FAR more aware of your surroundings. The posters in this threadlet who indicated that a firearm won't help you much in a mugging are correct to a certain extent - someone who surprises you by jumping out and demanding money at gunpoint is a bad situation. But you tend to watch people a lot more, on the street, to ascertain if they are a threat or not... you look for people hiding, etc. So those surprises are probably less likely to happen to you.
You could make a conscious effort to have the same kinds of mannerisms without carrying a firearm - and that's a great way to conduct yourself even if you don't want the responsibility of having a deadly weapon on you.
"A taser will still knock someone out, even if they're carrying an assault rifle."
Really? How do you propose to get close enough to tase someone without getting shot? If you're in a situation where you have to get away from a threat with a firearm, the ideal situation is to retreat or hide so they are no longer a threat. But if you're forced to defend yourself, a taser won't allow you to defend against a firearm unless the firearm is empty.
And also keep in mind that the modus operandi is *not* "shoot anyone who gives me trouble". The modus operandi is "escape from danger if possible, but if you are forced to defend yourself against a deadly outcome then at least you have means to do so."
Or how about this one, PublicLurker? Do you really think a 70 year old grandma needs a penis enlargement?
http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2009/10/23/Horse_shoot.ART_ART_10-23-09_A1_SGFF2MR.html
Sorry to spoil your generalization, publiclurker, but men in my family have penises. We don't need enhancements.
Think of it this way. While I never wish this on anyone, let's talk again after you've been mugged at gunpoint. Then you'll see clearly where a firearm is not a penis poofer but a device that allows you to choose your life over that of your mugger's.
Do you think this guy was thinking about the size of his penis when he defended himself against a mugger who shot at him?
http://www.examiner.com/self-defense-in-national/armed-citizen-shoots-a-violent-mugger-self-defense
How about this guy? Do you think he needed a bigger penis or a way to defend himself against a hoodlum?
http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/04/28/news/local/479034.txt
Or this one?
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Megerle.htm
Please don't project your own phallic challenges when you're trying to make a snide remark and inaccurate generalization.
As I read this article, I was like... *really*?
.45? You'll need some serious shielding and defensive moves for that. A taser or even a light weapon won't work here. And then if you use your 95mw laser to blind the perpetrator he will come back and sue you for all you're worth.
What do these, uh, "heroes" hope to do or defend against? Do they *really* think that slingshot is useful for *anything* in an urban setting?
What's going to happen when one of them encounters someone who is really serious, and the "hero" finds himself on the wrong end of a
Or what happens when there's an undercover cop making an arrest and one of these yahoos mistakes what he's seeing and tries to "intervene"?
Seriously people... the best thing to do nowadays is to get a concealed carry permit, carry a weapon you've practice on, and avoid trouble at all costs. Stuff like this is just ridiculous.
I've lived in the boonies for the last 7 years or so... and most of what you noted varies greatly by place. In my case it isn't as bad as you note.
However: "crappy medical care. big cities have the good hospitals and doctors" +1 you are correct about this!
The hospitals in rural areas - even those in cities with populations of ~20k - tend to kill people for the stupidest reasons... the kill rate is far higher than that of big city hospitals. And since the coroner is a doctor who works for the hospital, they falsify the death certificate as to time and cause of death, so as to not reflect badly on the hospital.
Don't ask me how I know this.
You think 1.5hr is a long commute? I do that 3x a week. Only because my employer is funny about people working remotely more often than that.
But where I live it's just like Cape Cod. I have a view of the lake off my back deck, an exquisitely starry sky at night, my choice of high speed internet, and 2,800 sf is less than a grand a month in mortgage + taxes. So yeah, it's worth it.
Dominion,
My wife passed away about 46 days ago.
There are no words to describe how monumentally disturbing and generally fucked up your idea is. I sincerely hope that you never have to go through what I'm going through now - but if you ever do, you will go back and purge any semblance of this "electronic impersonator" idea from your mind.
Families of the deceased want to remember their family members AS THEY ACTUALLY EXISTED. A fucked-up markov chain impersonation would not come anywhere close to doing what you think it will... instead, it will cause pain, further un-needed grief, and lots of other feelings, the nature of which you have NO FUCKING CLUE ABOUT unless you've lost someone close to you. I'm not talking about a "friend", I'm talking about someone with whom you've intimately spent a third of your life.
My advice: don't.
This is because you're using MySQL to develop on. MySQL allows all manner of illegal hostnames and other bad programming practices in the name of "making things easier" for people who don't know any better.
If you developed using Postgres, or another more compliant database, most of these problems would go away.
Reading comprehension fail!
"It is NOT an acceptable response in most Western 1st world nations to shoot and kill someone for a B&E under any circumstances. And if you're going to mention that they might be armed and its better to shoot first"
Here's what I said: "Hopefully, neutralization occurs when the burglar realizes you are armed and then flees - in this case, you would not shoot a fleeing burglar."
If you break into my house and I display a gun, you have a choice. You can run away, and I won't shoot you - I don't shoot a fleeing burglar. You can stay, but if you stay you've told me that you are intent to kill me, and I must defend my life.
Since I do not resort to ad-hominem attacks, I will say how strange it is to me to hear people who are not in the US say that they would not defend themselves if there was an intruder in their home, intent upon killing them.
It's interesting, Xenna, that what happens when you allow people to drive cars, is things like this:
http://www.10tv.com/live/content/local/stories/2010/05/31/story-upper-sandusky-three-dead-in-crash.html?sid=102
The folks in your article obviously have fundamental problems with the way they handle themselves - probably the same kinds of folks who would run someone off the road with a vehicle.
"If I was a bad guy and I had bad intentions, I think I'd make sure I'd shoot to kill first."
The assumption that bad guys will always shoot first given an increase in the number of concealed carry permit holders is a fallacy. The statistics prove that does not happen. As I've said several tiems on this thread, generally, thiefs are not murderers. They want to steal and get away as quickly and quietly as possible, and being involved in a shootout does not contribue to this goal. At least, that's what the studies have shown.
"Genuine Need" - that is an astute observation, Dafing. Let's take a look at the things I can do with my car:
-go to work, the store, other utilitarian places
-go to play ball in the park
-race my car on a track
-Provide relaxation, if I am restoring an old car
...and my gun?
-defend against bad guys, either by scaring them or by making the grave and last-resort decison to use the weapon
-hunt small game, if I needed to
-hone my skills at sport shooting
-Provide relaxation, if I am restoring an old gun
I suppose that there are many more places I could go with my car, than things I would want to shoot at for fun. (Shooting for fun only occurs with paper targets in a specially-designed range)
I believe I answered the question in the other post, but I would feel safer with other licensed and trained individuals carrying guns. I honestly do not know - I have not considered whether or not I would rather live in an unarmed society.
Hello again Dafing -
"...the country with the most guns, and one of the most violent..."
Mexico is far more violent than we are, and they don't allow any kind of guns for civilians.
"If these people realise others have a pistol, I would logically assume they would make sure they have an equal or if possible "better" weapon."
But you are making a fundamental assumption that all thiefs wish to become murderers. There is a large difference between someone who wants to steal and someone who is willing to kill to succeed at being a thief. But not everyone here has a gun - so a thief can still pick a victim who is unlikely to be armed. Studies have been conducted by the FBI (our national police) where career criminals say that their biggest fear is being shot during the course of their escapades.
"Think about it, if you are in a public place, say a movie theatre, watching, oh, lets say Avatar (in 3D if it makes a difference), would you rather EVERYONE had a gun, or that NOBODY had a gun?"
That point is actually moot, because in most locales, you are not allowed to carry into movie theaters even if you have a license. But it's also not a valid test because there are lots of people who frequent movie theaters who are under the influence of narcotics and other drugs - and those people are not allowed to carry weapons, and for good reason. But given a crowd who was licensed and had the proper training, yes, it is preferable that everyone is armed rather than nobody being armed.
"I would also think that if you want to commit a crime, and you know that the police who oppose you are brutal, you would be more likely to do ANYTHING you can to stay free. And thus things could escalate rapidly."
That is an interesting thought experiment but that's not the way it happens for the most part. Again, you're grossly over-estimating the number of psychopaths who are willing to kill. They are out there but few and far between.
"If you think that you live in an unsafe area because of weapons, then why add more weapons into the equation? Its a sort of a Mutual Assured Destruction theory? At some time, you have to back down, and work on REDUCING the problem itself."
Why add more weapons into the equation? I'll flip it around and say, if I know that the bad guys have guns, why would I make myself a willing victim by refusing to be armed? "At some point work on REDUCING the problem..." That is not practical. It seems that every time a country that already has firearms tries to restrict them, violent crime goes up. Why? Because the criminals, who don't obey laws anyway, will keep their guns while the law abiding citizens turn their guns in. Look at Britain for an example of this. Also, Chicago and other high-crime areas of the U.S. have the strictest gun laws in the country. This is not coincidence.
You should also consider why Sweeden was not invaded during WWII. There were a number of reasons for this, political, economic (they supplied the Nazi's wth iron), but each and every Sweede had a government-provided rifle and knew how to use it. Trying to invade Sweeden would be a nightmare under these conditions.
Hello Dafing -
"I find the idea of everyone being armed absolutely terrifying... mention seeing police with guns on every street...and the thought of even armed police gives me the creeps..."
You make a fundamntal error in your assumption; the error is assuming that the mere possession of a firearm makes an otherwise sane, calm individual into a psycopath who wants to shoot everybody up.
Here's a question for you. I am not sure if you drive a car where you are. If you do, then do you suddenly get the urge to mow down all of the pedestrians on the sidewalks when you're driving along the street? No? I didn't think so. A hunk of metal cannot, by itself, make an otherwise sane man insane.
I'm going to address your other comment separately, but I'll say this. To purchase a gun where I live, you are subject to a 'light' background check. If you have committed a felony, or any crime involving violence, escaping from police, or if you even have a protection order against you - you can't get a gun.
In order to be able to carry a gun with you, where I live, you need to get a license to do that. This license is a) easy to lose, b) expensive, and also carries with it a much more extensive background check. Those of us who have licenses do not want to lose them so we are always on our best behavior. We are more likely to walk away from confrontation and only escalate when it's certain that the bad guy is going to try to kill us. Good Night.
Icebraining: "In a place were guns are allowed, a thieve is much more likely to get a gun himself and possibly shoot on sight, because he knows you might have a gun."
Actually, FBI studies have shown that the opposite is true: criminals *avoid* places where there's a higher chance that victims are carrying firearms. They look for places they know people won't be armed.
In most cases, a thief is not a murderer. A thief wants to steal and get away as soon as possible, and being involved in a shootout runs counter to those goals.
Santax... "Shooting an unarmed burglar is precisely the same."
No, it's not. If someone gives you a little push, you assume they are being an idiot and walk away.
If someone is brazen enough to break in to your house while it is occupied, you must assume they have the intent to injure or kill you, and act accordingly to neutralize the threat. Hopefully, neutralization occurs when the burglar realizes you are armed and then flees - in this case, you would not shoot a fleeing burglar.
Anonymous: "And barring all that, you missed his point about the "shooting someone just for trespassing.""
Wow. Just... wow. This illustrates the OP's view about empathy perfectly... it is a logical fallacy to assume that all, or even most, or even any small percentage of folks who own guns automatically want to "shoot you if you step foot on my property again". You are absolutely correct - anyone who shoots someone merely for stepping foot on property SHOULD be arrested, and they often ARE.
Small sidebar.
Santax: "(The lies about WMD, the lies about drugs), (people telling you that is perfectly normal to own a gun, that it is normal to shoot at someone just for trespassing/burglary)"
The two categroies of events have nothing to do with one another. I'm not sure what environment you live in. Perhaps you're in an urban area where, if something is going wrong, you are pefectly able to dial 911 with 99% certainty and a police officer is just two minutes away. But not all of us live in those areas.
Here's the thought process behind many of those law-abiding citizens who legally carry firearms.
Any time you have to use any implement in a life-threatening emergency, whether it be a fire extinguisher to put out a fire or an implement to make a human threat to your life stop being a threat, it is a life-changing event for you and should be avoided at all costs.
But here’s the reality. Out where we live, at any one time there may be between 1 and 4 Sheriff deputies covering the entire 527 square miles of the county. In the neighboring county, if you call 911 at 3AM on a Tuesday morning, you will get the CELL PHONE of the on-call Deputy. Maybe he’s awake, maybe not.
There have been a high number of burglaries in this area – two involving a homeowner being shot, one of those a deadly shooting.
If you hear a knock at your door and see a guy with a 12-gauge and ski mask on your porch, the cops may be 20 minutes away. You need a way to make this person stop being a threat immediately. If he sees that you have a certain implement of minor destruction (IMD) and runs away, great! Your goal of making the person stop being a threat has succeeded. It is a gravely unfortunate circumstance, however, that in some cases merely displaying IMD’s does not work – the person is too intent on getting your possessions and won’t hesitate to use whatever force is needed. In these cases the only way to stop the threat is to use equal force and hope for the best... knowing full well that there are heavy legal and psychological burdens to deal with after the fact. You’ll (hopefully) still be alive afterward, but as I said, these situations should be avoided at all costs.
It's a very heavy decision to make, possibly having to take the life of another to preserve my own life... but at least with a weapon I am able to make that decision.
Santax, around here there aren't many residents who *do not* own a gun; thus the "normal" mode of living is to own a gun. And if someone is intent on breaking in to your house, you do not have the luxury of a full psychological profile to determine if that person is going to kill you or not - you have to neutralize the threat or accept a very high risk of being killed. Whether "neutralize" means the guy is scared away when you pull your gun, or "neutralize" means you have to shoot until the threat stops, that's up to the burglar.
This has nothing to do with empathy, nor the lies that were told about WMD or are told about drugs. I'll put it this way... I don't eat meat because I'm empathetic towards the plight of factory-farmed animals. However, since I don't burglarize, my empathy towards those who may be intent upon breaking into my house and killing me is non-existent. I have two friends who feel the same way.
I've been stuck in the ICU's of local hospitals for the past month in a similar circumstance. I've been doing bills and banking from my system at home via FreeNX.
IANAL and this is not legal advice.
If a 'smoking exclusion' was not in the contract, then they lied to you when they sold the contract, plain and simple.
Sue them in small claims court for the value of the computer. If your state is like Ohio and they award 3x damages for a breach of consumer protection act (a breach of contract might trigger this), you could get a nice upgrade.
If you don't want to go that far at least complain to your state's attorney general.
I realize that the following is a generalization, and there are always exceptions. In this discussion, I consider "White Collar" to be a real university such as Ohio State or Carnegie-Mellon - an institution rooted in education and not profit. "Blue Collar" is a technical institute such as DeVry, ITT Tech, or one of the for-profit online schools.
I theorize that the level of thought of a particular developer largely depends on his or her experience and "adventures" before school - and the selection of school follows this pattern.
Someone who ends up being an excellent developer was likely down the right path before college. Furthermore, if someone who is traveling this path accidentally attends a Blue Collar school, they will quickly ascertain that such a school is 'below their level' and a waste of money, and leave.
Why does this matter? In a real University, the classes are challenging enough that folks who are "just in it for the money" will drop out. The folks who love what they are doing will enjoy the challenge and persist.
The "Blue Collar" schools are motivated by money (continued payment of tuition) and just getting folks through the program, so their classes are less likely to be challenging, and therefore more folks who are "just in it for the money" will pass through. Because the classes are less challenging, the quality of the education is lower. The wrong motivation and lower quality of education mean an employee who will make more mistakes and create less efficient software.
Furthermore, someone with another degree, either as a full degree or a minor - or someone with CS as a minor - will do a better job, because such a person is more apt to look at problems from many different angles instead of just the "CS" angle.
I base these assertions on my own experience. After one trimester at DeVry, I started to get disturbed with some of the things being said by seniors. I moved to a real school and never looked back.
Orion:
Forgot one: Plone. It's OSS, runs on Linux (or Windows) and does everything WSS will do. Its indexing engine is based on Lucine so it's bloody fast.
"There is nothing wrong with SharePoint. It has a reasonable learning curve, you just have to invest a little bit of time into actually learning how to productively use it."
I spent 4 weeks learning about SharePoint. There are two tiers of functionality: that you can get from plain jane Sharepoint, and that you get from MOSS (Microsoft Office Sharepoint Server).
Unless you fork over the money for MOSS, you do not get any functionality over what you would get from Plone, an open source product. As an added bonus, Plone is far easier for non-technical folks to use than Sharepoint - so instead of dedicating IT resources to creating sites, you push that cost center off to the users and free up your resources for something else.
MOSS is prohibitively expensive. For 2500 seats, you're looking at around $400k to start plus $130k/year.
For (far less than) that amount, you could hire a developer to add MOSS-like features to Plone. The MOSS features really don't produce enough ROI to justify the expense, unless you are looking at adding third party BI applications (many of which require MOSS) that may or may not produce ROI by their own merits.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice or interpretation of any law, but here's what I would do based on the laws of Ohio.
Because their product is offered in Ohio, Ohio courts have venue over their actions. Furthermore, Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure expand venue to small claims courts.
Ohio has a law against lying in advertisements. By not specifically indicating that they only publish positive reviews, the lack of negative reviews could be construed in this situation as lying. In many cases, violations of this act reward three times damages.
If the laws in your state are configured similarly, then just sue them in small claims court for three times actual damages.
It's up to you, of course, to make this determination (if it will work based on your state's laws) and write your complaint appropriately. Having said that, I was successful in collecting an amount greater than damages in a similar circumstance involving a promise made by an out of state auto warranty company by using this method.
>>>What happens if the brakes on your car fail and... accident?
What if I acquire Swine Flu and die before I pass my genes to my kids... if my house catches fire and turns me into a charcoal critter? Life is risky. Face facts. "If you can't handle a bloody nose maybe you should have stayed home."
But there's a problem. In each of those cases, the entire risk falls on your shoulders - if any of those bad things occur, it's only you who suffers. In the case of car insurance, you are pushing a higher risk onto those who are driving around you. If something bad occurs in your car, then there are others besides yourself who will have to deal with the consequences. Your idealism is increasing the risk born to others.
>>>Do you have deep enough pockets to reimburse the other drivers
Yes because all the money I did not spend making the Insurance company's CEO rich is in my bank... Insurance is just a scam to suck money from your wallet to the CEO.
Ok, let me get this straight. You're willing to risk, say, half a million dollars of your own money simply to avoid paying the insurance company $1200 per year? How does that make sense? It would make sense if the $1200 were to go to meteorite insurance (or insurance for something else just as unlikely to occur), but car-related calamities occur much more often, no matter how safe we like to think we are.
You should really put your money where your mouth is and drop your insurance altogether. In its place, just buy a surety bond from the state - in Ohio IIRC if you buy a $30k surety bond you are considered to be 'self insured'. After all, if you don't want to give your money to the insurance CEO's you shouldn't give *any* money to the insurance CEO's.