[geeks] Dos and similar games

[Mike Hebel]

On Aug 17, 2006, at 3:36 PM, Michael Parson wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 02:06:59PM -0500, Mike Hebel wrote:
>> Thus spake Michael Parson:
>>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:31:03PM -0500, Mike Hebel wrote:
>>
>>> If everyone that carries carries openly then a would-be criminal can
>>> scan a room/area/whatever and make a quick judgement call on if they
>>> want to go forward.  But if you know that statistically, 15% of the
>>> population carries (concealed), and you can't tell who in the room
>>> might have a gun under their belt, it makes that decision harder, and
>>> a smart criminal (yeah, there are a few out there) would choose an
>>> easier target.
>>
>> 15% is a percentage that is easily gambled on and makes the risk an
>> acceptable one for the criminal.  If they know that most likely the
>> majority of people carrying weapons openly will be after him the
>> moment something happens then it becomes a serious deterrent.  And
>> belive me - those that choose to carry weapons _will_ be on him if
>> something happens.  Just as someone with a CCW would.
>
> The 15% was made up, I haven't looked at the statistics recently.  What
> has been published is that crime rates go down after states issue
> shall-issue conceal carry laws.  Personally, I wouldn't like those 
> odds.

Yes but a criminal that is not willing to gamble on some percentage 
will _definitely_ not do anything if weapons are shown openly.

And IMO those that are "on the fence" wouldn't want to risk it if they 
_know_ there's a weapon or two there to cause a problem.

>> You also ignored the second part of the second point - truly nasty
>> presecution for gun related crimes.  With a "real" penalty on
>> the line for shooting someone - automatic life without parol,
>> three-appeal-death, etc. - someone who is the least bit intelligent
>> won't want to risk it.  Again I'm not saying there won't be exceptions
>> but the nickle and dime ones will almost certainly drop off the map.
>
> Fear of prosecution doesn't seem to deter criminals.  Fear of getting
> dead does though.

Hello?  Read that line again.  Or let me translate: "Living Death", 
"Dead after three tries", etc.

I said _REAL_ punishments.  Fear of those things are what kept most 
people in line for many many years.  When those things went away (among 
other things) crime got worse.

>>>> 2) Airplanes:  Issue pepper spray to _every_ adult on the plane then
>>>> lock the cockpit. What's the worst that could happen?  You end up
>>>> with a bunch of people with pepper in their eyes and a plane landed
>>>> early.  If the hijacker manages to smuggle and detonate a bomb then
>>>> a gun wouldn't have helped you anyway.
>>>
>>> Why not just hook pepper into the a/c system so it can be kicked off
>>> from the cockpit (which would be on a seperate/filtered system)?
>>
>> An unacceptable idea because it is much less granular.  Also
>> automatically spraying _everybody_ would generate ill-will for the
>> airlines and make people even more passive when on an airplane. (Not
>> to mention increase insurance rates.)  Giving them the ability to
>> defend themselves - to make a difference - encourages them to be more
>> active in the plane's defense as well as their own.
>
> I've never needed pepper spray, or anything else, for that matter,
> to defend myself.  And has been demonstrated a couple of times since
> 9/11, neither does anyone else.  The biggest problem we had before
> those events was the passive, "sit down and let them do what they want"
> attitude, which has since been thrown out the window.

But YOU are by definition of having the concealed carry atypical.  The 
average person is "on the fence" but will act if given the opportunity. 
  Giving them the means pushes them that much closer to acting.  And it 
deters anybody who might want to act against them.  Probably even more 
than knowing an Air Marshal might be on the plane.

>>> That was sarcasm.
>>
>> And uncalled for.  I presented the idea in honesty and don't feel that
>> I deserve the attitude of sarcasm you've given me.
>
> In the end, my scenario winds up the same as yours, except the cockpit
> would be able to exercise more control over the situation than yours.

The cockpit needs to worry about flying the plane.  If the passengers 
are in trouble but the trouble can't spread to the cockpit or 
engineering areas of the plane then all they have to do is land 
somewhere to resolve the issue.  Plus putting them in charge of the 
pepper spray makes them accountable and thus able to be sued.  Which 
unfortunately is something that we have to think about if this were put 
in place.

>> What it seems to come down to here is that you won't accept any idea
>> that won't allow you to carry a gun.  Or at least that's how you're
>> coming across to me.
>
> I'm against anti-carry laws.

Fair enough.  Your opinion.

> Part of me is against carry laws, but that's just based on my reading
> and understanding of the Constitution of the United States and other
> papers written by the same people of the era in which it was penned.

The Constitution specifies, the last time I checked, ARMs not guns.  
I'm perfectly fine with an armed society - just not one with serious 
range weapons.  Maybe give serious training to people using bows.  But 
then while a bow is more silent than a gun it doesn't have near the 
range and isn't always as fatal though it can be in the right hands.

> I never carried out of a need for protection.  For the most part, 
> people
> get assaulted because they look like easy targets.  I don't look like
> a victim.  I carried because I had a right to and rights have to be
> exercised.

So you've exercised _one_ _possible_ _way_ _to_ _exercise_ _your_ 
_rights_.  It's not necessarily the best way for all concerned nor the 
only way.

> In the end, who is safer if I, as a law-abiding, tax-paying, citizen,
> is banned from carrying a concealed weapon into a school, a hospital, a
> restaurant, or my desk at work?
>
> Not some measure of 'feel safer' but really being safer?

Again - nobody said carrying a weapon was bad.  Concealing a weapon 
that has serious long-range capability - that's what I consider a bad 
idea.

Wear our weapons openly and proudly I say!  And any conflict between 
you and another man should be done toe-to-toe and not with lead and 
gunpowder from a "safe" distance.  There is no honor in such and very 
little to remind you of your responsibilities to your fellow 
man/woman/child.

And a criminal stupid enough to use a gun?  Let the entire armed 
populace watch for him and maybe "damage him just a little" before 
turning him in.  A criminal isn't going to get far from the police when 
a good portion of the people around him are openly armed and in his 
way.

Mike Hebel
----
The longer one holds on to a memory, the longer one lives in the past. 
The deeper the memory they hold onto, the more beautiful the past will 
become. The beautiful memories will eventually turn into hate. Even if 
they look ahead, they lose the ability to walk. As long as the heavy 
chain called revenge continues to bind the heart, the tears of sadness 
will continue to flow.  - Vash