[geeks] Dos and similar games

[Michael Parson]

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.

> 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.

>> Which is why I don't like places that don't let you carry, just
>> cuz they are afraid of those scary guns.  I don't see them as safe
>> places, I see them as target-rich environments for criminals who now
>> know they have an un-armed set of potential victims.  Criminals don't
>> obey the laws, some people just can't seem to get that through their
>> think skulls.
>
> Point.
>
>>> 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.

>> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

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?

-- 
Michael Parson
mparson at bl.org