Home > Regular Features > Monday Message Board

Monday Message Board

March 8th, 2010

It’s time, once again for the Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. As usual, civilised discussion and no coarse language.

Categories: Regular Features Tags:
  1. Donald Oats
    March 8th, 2010 at 09:36 | #1

    Google Search is such a great resource that it has become an embedded, indeed essential, element of the Webastructure (okay, so I’m not that great at making up new words). While a number of Google Inc. initiatives are fantastic, there is the itching question as to whether it is sensible to trust Google as the repository of the web’s historic content. Of course there is plenty of duplication around the web of bits and pieces, but it is the combination of search function and data repository that is important.

    Somewhere in the future some law cases may be entirely dependent upon electronic archives as part of the “crime scene evidence”, as it were. For example, electronic documents that are created and circulated for the purpose of committing a criminal act might only exist – nominally temporarily – in the web ether, and never as a physical presence such as paper copies. Furthermore, there are now quite a few cases in which it is apparent that some highly frequented Blogs and other notionally “permanent” records suffer from serious after-the-fact revisionism. By this I am referring to the manner in which closed threads may be later edited by the blog administrator to remove or alter the content of blog posts, so as to convey a different discussion on a thread than the one which actually occurred. To be clear: I am referring here to blog topics that have been closed, and then silently revised after-the-fact (ie after being closed to further comments), and not to ongoing live threads in which blogging policy is being enforced.

    A few of the more skilled among us use the Google archive/cache facilities to ping people who have done just that kind of silent revisionism. Without impugning Google Inc. I can foresee future scenarios in which criminal cases are supplied mis-leading evidence through the reliance upon a single source of etruth. I’m perfectly aware of the webprints left by such revisionism now; the point I’m attempting to make is that while small fragments of the versioning of what is presumed to be fixed, permanent archive econtent may have been captured by observant outsiders, there isn’t any practical way of performing (legal) discovery so as to find and use these outsiders as witnesses, or to use their locally archived variants as part of a chain of evidence. Instead, we hope that reconstruction of the evidence of revisionism may come entirely from Google Inc, a company that is now the defacto repository of our web history.

    Just a jumble of thoughts. Any legal eagles out there who have a more informed current knowledge of this subject matter? I’m curious about the impact that the Web and the many assumptions underpinning its use may have upon the law.

  2. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 10:33 | #2

    whilst i cannot comment on the legal aspect i find the general problem of so much information and history essentially hanging in space ready to be switched off very concerning,
    i myself am now trying to find a way of pulling as much information that interests me onto my own machine,
    i started doing it by just copying whole articles with links and pasting them into big InDesign documents,
    but they are not searchable or tagable,
    i have been meaning recently to see if i can find a system that works like the web within my own machine,
    storable, tagable and searchable documents,
    i amm not a technical database kind of person though, any thoughts?

  3. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 11:14 | #3

    International finance-industry estimates have Dubai’s sovereign debt load, thanks to the off-balance-sheet debt, exploding to nearly four times its originally reported $80 billion, as other government-backed projects have gone bad after Dubai World’s default in late November.
    This is how the Greek debt has grown 12 times over the initial numbers it had on the books with the European Union.
    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/greece_hidden_debt_soaring_yCcLPXjD1sDbRxgP51ANKJ

    there will be no meaningful change until off-balance sheet accounting is history,
    again, making a mockery of the idea that there is meaningful regulation

  4. Michael
    March 8th, 2010 at 11:31 | #4

    @smiths
    I have a similar dilemma – lots of interesting articles archived that I can’t find when I need to refer to them. Are you using a mac by any chance? Spotlight can index things like rtfd files from textedit. I wouldn’t use indesign for archiving articles. You should at least use something that is non-proprietary so you can future proof it. The volume of information on hard-drives is becoming a concern. I keep a lot of podcasts, but without a way of searching them they maybe pretty much useless in the future. I often discuss this with my colleague and we have come to the conclusion that the operating systems will eventually do a lot of meta tagging as background processes. Things like face recognition, geo-tagging, recognising date formats etc. will eventually be available everywhere.

  5. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 11:51 | #5

    john, i am sure you read zerohedge anyway, but if not,
    theres a video here of stiglitz and some of the zombies
    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/joe-stiglitz-slaps-invisible-hand

  6. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 12:06 | #6

    i am using a mac michael,
    with regard to Indesign, i run up documents to about 60 pages and then pdf them,
    i like using InDesign because i use it for work and i can put them all into consistent style

  7. Jim Birch
    March 8th, 2010 at 12:30 | #7

    Smiths #2

    You could paste things into Google Docs – they’re fully indexed. Joke? No actually. I put a lot of stuff into Google notebook. Notebook is no longer available for new users but you can do something similar in Docs.

    There are quite a few applications you can put on your own computer that will do full text indexing and keywording but they all have a cost and maintenance overhead. InDesign is probably not a good choice. Think about backups and your data surviving pc upgrades. As soon as you put something on your pc you need to figure out how to look after it. Lots of people who should know better have come unstuck. I do IT for a job and that’s enough for me; I try to minimise my effort to maintain our home PCs. Google’s free cloud storage suits me. You can access it anywhere, and share and publish it if you want to. There’s others (Zoho, Thinkfree, …) who will do similar for a moderate monthly sum if you don’t like Google’s terms (“we own everything, but we are good guys”).

  8. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 12:52 | #8

    i like words, but sometimes they serve to distract
    the graph at the link tells its own story
    http://www.epi.org/economic_snapshots/entry/where_has_all_the_income_gone_look_up/
    interestingly the data and the graph end in 2007,
    so heres my prediction,
    the top 400 households income goes up, not down, during the financial crisis of 2007 …

  9. March 8th, 2010 at 13:37 | #9

    smiths,
    If you are using the international accounting standards (as most countries now are) the only way you can have anything transfer off your balance sheet is if “substantially all” the risks and rewards of ownership lie with someone else.
    Even in this event the standards require you to recognise a liability (at full value) if it is more likely than not (i.e. 50% possible or more) that you will have to pay out. If this test is not met you need to disclose any contingent liability that exists, unless the probability that it will occur is “remote”.
    Of course, governments can change the standards that apply to them (as Greece’s may have) but companies are bound by these standards. If they intentionally do not meet them and losses are incurred by investors or others as a result then both the company and the individuals responsible are open to criminal prosecution for fraud.
    Legally, therefore, off-balance sheet accounting is history.

  10. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 8th, 2010 at 13:38 | #10

    In 2008 the US supreme court over turned the long standing laws prohibiting hand guns in New York. The laws were said to be unconstitutional. At the time I pondered what impact this would have on murder rates. My guess was that murder would decline with the ready availability of legal hand guns providing a rebalancing of power between good guys and bad guys. According to an article on the ALS blog by David Leyonhjelm the stats now show that murder did decline. Apparently by 25%. Interesting.

  11. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 14:20 | #11

    john, on the recently discussed subject of right wing libertarians
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/06/tory-madrasa-young-britons-foundation

  12. Donald Oats
    March 8th, 2010 at 14:28 | #12

    If I return to the USA, and I walk into a coffee shop – say NY Strbcks (although unlikely in reality) – and I see some Joe Blow openly packing heat, what am I meant to think? That somehow I am safer because of the presence of an individual I have never met, who is clearly not security or police or FBI, someone who could go Postal? No, I will take the obvious precaution of upping and leaving, and ringing the NYPD to report the presence of an armed individual.

    If the scene is repeated, but this time a significant number of different groups of people are advertising blam-blams, then what am I going to do? I’m going to take the obvious precaution of upping and leaving, and ringing Strbcks to express my severe disappointment at being unable to buy a coffee and relax, due to the presence of random groups of people imposing a potentially lethal environment upon me. And, for good measure, I’d ring the NYPD to warn them of the presence of several different groups of armed individuals congregating at one location. Who knows, maybe they are separate gangsta stripes out to settle a few scores. Or not.

  13. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 14:42 | #13

    i honestly don’t know why you responded to that one Donald

    http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/swann/herblock/images/s03456u.jpg

  14. Donald Oats
    March 8th, 2010 at 14:51 | #14

    Or maybe I’ll go and purchase a grenade launcher or a machine gun or something – you know, just in case the other gun-carrying individuals are macho-bound to carry something more substantial than an automatic or six-shooter, not that those weapons are free from causing horrific trauma to a shot individual – I’m sure that if you talk to local NY hospitals about Friday-nite and Saturday-nite trauma victims, it would be a sad tale. Perhaps some rummaging might pull up the stats on shooting victims and the related injuries.

    As to the statistics of overall crime, that certainly needs further examination in order to eliminate other causes for the alleged drop of 25%. Further context required for a reasonable evaluation of claim. If state by state the US states remove their restrictions upon carrying (concealed) firearms, it will be interesting indeed to see at what point enough non-gun owners break and decide that they too must pack heat – to be safe! I seem to recall a discussion on this blog before, concerning the bistability of two population state: of all those eligible to own and carry a firearm, the two states are A, in which virtually noone carries a firearm, and B in which virtually everyone packs heat. If the laws that ensure A are removed, I wonder how quickly open promotion by vested interest groups (Libertarians, gun-slingers, people who must deal with disgruntled clients (eg those about to be cut-off from unemployment benefits, or ripped off on an insurance claim, etc) will force a transition from state A to state B. I’ll bet it’s far quicker than taking meaningful action upon GHGs, poverty alleviation, mental health service improvements, and the like.

    From Vincent Fournier (Alice Cooper, “Lost in America”, from “The Last Temptation”, 1994):

    I can’t go to school
    cuz I ain’t got a gun
    I ain’t got a gun
    cuz I ain’t got a job
    I ain’t got a job
    cuz I can’t go to school
    so I’m looking for a girl with a gunn and a job
    Don’t you know where you are

    Lost in America

  15. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 15:05 | #15

    JPM’s current derivatives is larger than the world’s GDP

    http://shockedinvestor.blogspot.com/2010/01/jpm-derivatives-are-larger-than-worlds.html
    but this is what makes me laugh,
    people describe the central bank governors of the US, UK and Australia as the second most powerful people in each country, ha, ha, yeah, right
    reminds me of this story from a while back

    The heads of the leading US banks were summoned to the White House yesterday for a “frank and candid” discussion with Barack Obama…
    The chairmen of Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and Morgan Stanley failed to turn up

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/14/obama-raps-bankers

  16. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 15:21 | #16

    you could buy a suitcase nuke from an al-Queda sleeper cell and destroy a whole generation of bad guys Donald, thereby destroying three myths in one move

  17. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 8th, 2010 at 15:41 | #17

    As to the statistics of overall crime, that certainly needs further examination in order to eliminate other causes for the alleged drop of 25%.

    That would be more intelligent than spouting silly stories about how you are scared of guns and can’t enjoy a coffee at starbucks. I mean some people are scared of pooftas and some people are scared of Jews and some people are scared of spiders but none of those mean there is a case for banning homosexuality, Jewish symbols or spiders tatoos.

  18. March 8th, 2010 at 16:20 | #18

    smiths,
    The notional value of the derivative portfolio is not a very useful a measure of anything at all. The net open position is the useful information and that is nothing like $79tn. Maybe you should look at destroying the myth that somehow totalling up the notional of all those derivatives and puting that as a headline number is somehow important.

  19. smiths
    March 8th, 2010 at 17:20 | #19

    ok, but the explosive growth in the derivative total is a valuable indicator …
    the total notional amount of credit default swaps went from US$2.69 trillion in 2003 to US$54.6 trillion in 2008,
    and credit default swaps make the financial system more complex, more opaque and exacerbate the systemic problems

  20. boconnor
    March 8th, 2010 at 17:24 | #20

    TerjeP (say tay-a) :

    As to the statistics of overall crime, that certainly needs further examination in order to eliminate other causes for the alleged drop of 25%.

    That would be more intelligent than spouting silly stories about how you are scared of guns and can’t enjoy a coffee at starbucks. I mean some people are scared of pooftas and some people are scared of Jews and some people are scared of spiders but none of those mean there is a case for banning homosexuality, Jewish symbols or spiders tatoos.

    I don’t know if I’m missing an irony alert, but on face value you have misunderstood the issue raised by Don Oats: people (quite reasonably) fear they may be maimed or killed by the people with guns who are in the same physical space as they are. And actually people (including children) are indeed maimed and killed by guns.

    Unless you believe in a “wild west” mentality then increasing gun ownership could reasonably be seen as having a negative impact on the civility of society.

  21. iain
    March 8th, 2010 at 18:25 | #21

    Sovereign (quasi)defaults turn ugly:

    The crisis spurred a series of demonstrations from usually phlegmatic Icelanders, who recited poetry and TOSSED YOGHURT POTS and rocks at government buildings to protest what they deemed the greed, ineptitude and spinelessness of the governing elite.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/06/world/europe/06iceland.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

  22. March 8th, 2010 at 18:29 | #22

    smiths,
    I would agree it is interesting information – but only in the context of “Wow! Look at that number” sort of stuff. By comparing it to GDP is implicitly saying that in some way the comparison is useful. It is not. Only the use of the net open position is actually useful in any way whatsoever.

  23. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 8th, 2010 at 20:25 | #23

    I don’t know if I’m missing an irony alert, but on face value you have misunderstood the issue raised by Don Oats: people (quite reasonably) fear they may be maimed or killed by the people with guns who are in the same physical space as they are. And actually people (including children) are indeed maimed and killed by guns.

    You and Don may be scared of somebody who has a side arm and is drinking coffee but your irrational fears don’t warrant a case for public policy. I’m not sure why the addition of a uniform and a public pay cheque alter Dons level of anxiety but again his personal axieties don’t make a case for prohibition.

    Of course if gun prohibition actually did lower homicide there would be a case for it. However that wouldn’t then be a public policy based on personal phobias.

    It makes sence to screen who can own a gun, just as we screen who can become a police officer, however it doesn’t make sence to have a blanket ban. People of good character and demonstrated technical skill should be free to own and carry a side arm. For airline pilots it probably should be mandatory. However I also trust doctors, teachers, radiologists and electrical engineers.

  24. Michael
    March 8th, 2010 at 20:54 | #24

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    I don’t really want to get into a debate about guns, but police officers presumably aren’t just screened to carry guns, they are trained and regulated about when and how they carry their guns. Unless I’m completely wrong about the US they can’t just shove their revolvers down their pants.
    It sure would make sense to screen who can carry firearms but there are lots of potentially dangerous activities that are just outlawed because it would be very expensive to set up a regulatory framework for the public to get involved such as fireworks and using explosives. In this day and age there isn’t a high frequency of scenarios where guns are necessary in modern cities so banning them makes economic sense too.

  25. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 8th, 2010 at 20:58 | #25

    Michael – most gun owners are prepared to bear the cost of training and practice. And testing and certification isn’t that expensive and costs can be readily recovered on a user pays basis. It isn’t that complicated.

  26. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 8th, 2010 at 21:06 | #26

    In this day and age there isn’t a high frequency of scenarios where guns are necessary in modern cities so banning them makes economic sense too.

    What is the economic argument?

  27. Michael
    March 8th, 2010 at 21:13 | #27

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    The economic argument is that if a dangerous activity is permitted by law then the activity needs to be regulated and that regulation must cost something. I don’t have any figures at hand, but are all the costs of regulating gun ownership and the potential misuse of the guns borne by the owners? It should be theoretically possible for screened, responsible and trained members of the public to safely operate shoulder mounted rock launchers. Should these be permitted? Would there be a cost in regulating the sale and use of these devices?

  28. SJ
    March 8th, 2010 at 21:15 | #28

    Michael – most gun owners are prepared to bear the cost of training and practice. And testing and certification isn’t that expensive and costs can be readily recovered on a user pays basis. It isn’t that complicated.

    Argumentum a-la-frootloop.

    I.e.

    1) wee’z libertarianz, and we needz gunz. Gummint kaint deny us gunz.
    2) we are quite reasonable people who are prepared to pay the cost of government mandated certification.
    3) wee’z libertarianz, and we needz gunz. Gummint kaint deny us gunz, AND theyz kain’t make us pay to proov thet weez aint crazy MOFOs. UN kaint take over the worlz!!!

  29. Michael
    March 8th, 2010 at 21:20 | #29

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    I’m genuinely curious to know if anyone apart from gun advocates actually produces any material related to the subject? I’m not an gun enthusiast or a campaigner for gun control so I have to admit I’m not up with the debate.

  30. Michael
    March 8th, 2010 at 21:23 | #30

    @SJ
    Maybe there should be a catch 22 like screening for guns. If you want one then your not a suitable candidate to have one, if you don’t want one then you can be trusted to have one.

  31. Alice
    March 8th, 2010 at 21:26 | #31

    @SJ
    LOL SJ – that about sums it up – seriously funny – gunz meanz freedom – just what every libertarian dreams of – one helluva big gunz show cabinet and a lot of horns and stuffed animal trophies in their denz (or is that dense?) – one more post and Ill be swamping like Terje gets away with regularly!

  32. boconnor
    March 8th, 2010 at 21:37 | #32

    TerjeP (say tay-a) :
    Michael – most gun owners are prepared to bear the cost of training and practice. And testing and certification isn’t that expensive and costs can be readily recovered on a user pays basis. It isn’t that complicated.

    Hmm…perhaps those that bear arms should pay the social and health costs imposed on society by their activities – the health cost of fixing up those injured from gun wounds, the additional costs imposed on law enforcement, and the lost income and productivity for those affected by gun related deaths (many thousands in the US alone).

    That would be true “user pays”. And indeed, the calculation isn’t that complicated.

  33. Ikonoclast
    March 8th, 2010 at 21:47 | #33

    It looks like Terje is in agreement with the narrator, lead character and arch gun runner in the movie “Lord of War”.

    “There is one gun for every 12 people on earth. Some people think this is a bad thing. I think, how can I sell guns to the other 11?”

    The logical extension of Terje’s beliefs is that we would all be much safer if every adult in the world had a weapon. I presume Terje does not want to see minors with weapons… but I could be wrong.

  34. Freelander
    March 9th, 2010 at 06:33 | #34

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/business/07gret.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all

    Seems there could be plenty of grief left. Looks like the snake oil merchants managed to sell lots of CDSs to entities that ought to know better.

  35. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 09:36 | #35

    The logical extension of Terje’s beliefs is that we would all be much safer if every adult in the world had a weapon.

    Sorry but that does not follow. Most people don’t need or want a gun. We would probably be safer if nobody had a gun but outside of controlled environments that isn’t an achievable scenerio. And even within airports it is difficult and expensive to be sure.

    I don’t personally own a gun, I never have owned a gun and I don’t wish to own a gun. Some of you have a hard time sorting the political from the personal.

    Prohibiting guns has serious unintended consequences. To ignore them due to prejudice or bigotry is counter productive.

  36. smiths
    March 9th, 2010 at 10:07 | #36

    you recently complained terje that the federal government stopped you shooting pigs in national parks,
    now you say you don’t own a gun,
    what were you intending on shooting them with, the power of your ideas?

  37. boconnor
    March 9th, 2010 at 10:13 | #37

    smiths :
    what were you intending on shooting them with, the power of your ideas?

    Sorry, had to say …..classic!

  38. Michael
    March 9th, 2010 at 11:12 | #38

    TerjeP (say tay-a) :

    Prohibiting guns has serious unintended consequences. To ignore them due to prejudice or bigotry is counter productive.

    What are you referring to exactly – guns for sport, guns for use on farms, guns for personal protection, guns as fashion?

  39. smiths
    March 9th, 2010 at 11:40 | #39

    We saved the economy but kind of lost the public doing it.”

    Timothy Geitner, 2010

  40. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 11:56 | #40

    Terje said:

    Prohibiting guns has serious unintended consequences. To ignore them due to prejudice or bigotry is counter productive.

    Personally, I’m against attempting to prohibit guns. It’s probably not technically feasible in most jurisdictions. I am however in favour of regulating their storage and usage in such a way as to make their illegal use much less likely, and imposing the cost of such regulation largely on gun owners.

    I’d like to see each weapon manufactured with multiple passive RFID devices that would allow the carriers to be tracked in something like real time. I’d like the weapons to be stored in approved gun safes that were biometrically locked. Every time the gun safe was opened the event would be logged centrally and the weapon tracked. If a no signal event occurred, the authroties would investigate the gun or the setting or the safe for faults. And when the person was out with his or her weapon(s) their RFID embedded permit would be with the weapon, sending out real time data about the carrier.

    I’d like those applying for permits to have both an adequate reason for possession (sporting, have an AVO out, security guard etc) and to justify their choice and range of weapons for that purpose. I’d also like them to have regular independent and random checks for mental fitness and for that information to be available in every jurisdiction.

    With the freedom to carry comes responsibility.

  41. Michael
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:13 | #41

    Fran Barlow :
    I’d like to see each weapon manufactured with multiple passive RFID devices that would allow the carriers to be tracked in something like real time. I’d like the weapons to be stored in approved gun safes that were biometrically locked.

    I admire your faith in technology, I’ll hazard a guess that you don’t work in I.T. RFID devices can be read by law enforcement and anyone else with the right technology. This is why there is concern over the idea of putting them in passports.
    “After the State Department proposed last February to include RFID chips in passports, privacy groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation expressed concern. Because some RFID chips can be scanned remotely, criminals may be able to covertly scan groups of passport holders at airports, the EFF said in April. RFID passports could thus act as “terrorist beacons,” as well as indiscriminately exposing U.S. residents’ personal information to strangers.”
    Maybe these issues have been satisfactorily dealt with but I’m not sure that having the ability to detect firearms is always unproblematic.

  42. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:23 | #42

    Fran – I don’t think many people dispute the need to screen and register gun owners. The LDP in Australia support it as does the US NRA. However there isn’t any evidence of additional safety being achieved by the actual registration of the firearms themselves. I can see what you are trying to achieve in your RFID proposal but I don’t believe it is practical. Even the police fail to measure up to existing storage regulations. And the government can’t even install insulation without widespread rorting and stuff ups. Even Howards gun by back saw guns disappear (after being bought back) into the black market.

  43. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:25 | #43

    @Michael

    For the record

    I kind of do work in IT — as it is part of my teaching brief …

    Your objection for passports may be fair enough, though even here it might be possible to have a device that was readable only by something with the right decryption key …

    However that might be though I’m not sure why this should be a problem with guns within a given jurisdiction. If you are not carrying the gun illegally and not about to commit an offence, why should you care who knows that you are carrying? In some jurisdictions, the gun advocates think they should be able to display their weapons openly.

    It’s a matter of some interest that in the US firearms are amongst the more commonly stolen items. Being able to track them across state and local boundaries would be no bad thing.

  44. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:29 | #44

    p.s. It is worth noting that in Australia firearms are not even the primary weapon used in murder. Typically people get beaten to death with fists and feet.

  45. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:31 | #45

    Fran – police weapons are also lost and stolen. Would they have RFIDs also?

  46. smiths
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:34 | #46

    just a quick note on Greece, looks like the EU leaders did not agree with almost everyone here that recommended default of some sort,
    it also looks like the supposed weakness of the european monetary union that was thrown around here quite liberally has been shown to be strength and resilience,
    do you think soros has the balls to really have a go at Germany, no chance
    all those stories of secret hedge fund meetings and trades of a lifetime against the Euro… equine waste product,
    my bet is that Euro will retrace and we will suddenly start reading about some other little country outside the euro that Nial Ferguson and Ambrose Evans have been informed they must start attacking

    truth be told, i was had as well,
    i believed that Greece might default and send a wave of default through the eurozone,
    i now feel annoyed and embarrassed that the mouthpieces are so damn effective

  47. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:40 | #47

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    Terje said:

    I don’t believe it is practical. Even the police fail to measure up to existing storage regulations.

    Is that so? Then let us bring them up to standard.

    And the government can’t even install insulation without widespread rorting and stuff ups.

    Done to death lib-bot talking point. Ironic too as the weakness in the program was the lack of bureaucrtic oversight, the desire to allow small entrepreneurs to run the system in conjunction with the notional beneficiaries. If the government really had been installing insulation (as opposed to handing out money to private contractors to do it) far fewer would have been installed, the standard would have been higher and the cost would have been a good deal higher per installation.

    You can’t just map the latest talking point de jour onto every proposal that has the word government in it.

    The broader point is this. In Australia, possibly for cultural and geographical reasons, the problem is far smaller than in the US, even allowing for the scales involved. We don’t have a common border with a developing world economy carrying massive traffic and having a drug war. So the problem isn’t as pressing as in the US.

    Nevertheless, it could be done. Population in Australia is actually quite concentrated. The infrastructure to support the system would be cheap per capita to install. So it is totally feasible, financially and technically. It might not be worth doing because the problem isn’t that great.

    The problem with Howard of course was that his principal constituency was 50-50 on the whole concept and so he did a half-arsed job was done at the back end.

  48. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:43 | #48

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    police weapons are also lost and stolen. Would they have RFIDs also?

    Why not?

  49. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:51 | #49

    And for the record on the RFID on passports thing, it’s entirely possible that the only data sent by the said ID might be the unique ID for the particular passport authenticating the passport rather than the passport holder. That information might then only be available to the relevant US government departments and anyone with whom they were sharing data on request — e.g. interpol, a foreign customs service for verification in realtime etc.

    The range on passive RFID can be quite small — in most cases less than 10 metres with line of sight if you want it that way (though in the case of the ones for guns you would want a lot more than that). Accordingly, intercepting the signal would be difficulty for non-authrised person and almost useless.

  50. Michael
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:52 | #50

    @Fran Barlow
    Well my experience with I.T. is that it often doesn’t live up to expectations (Microsoft surface, zune, sharepoint, almost everything MS produces…..), is often over budget for various reasons (Myki in Victoria) and can lead to unintended consequences (facebook).

  51. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 12:59 | #51

    If you are not carrying the gun illegally and not about to commit an offence, why should you care who knows that you are carrying? In some jurisdictions, the gun advocates think they should be able to display their weapons openly.

    Fran – gun advocates are generally fighting for the right to conceal weapons not to display them. A concealed weapon causes less offence to those that are gun phobic, provides greater general deference to criminals as they don’t know which potential victim is armed. Brandishing a weapon is generally regarded as an intimidating act and concealment ensures no misunderstanding. For you to claim that gun advocates champaign for the right to openly carry weapons is a bit of a mischaracterisation. It is in general gun control advocates that insist that guns should be on display (and then banned).

    I suspect that criminals would be able to remove or disable RFIDs pretty quickly so it would be mostly law abiding citizens and police advertising their firearm status. Perfect for bad guys who want to ensure a power unbalance before they pounce. Openly advertising RFIDs also reveal those who probably aren’t armed.

    I don’t have any argument with the notion that police should lift their standards regarding storage. This is low hanging fruit which the executive can pursue without new laws. Why don’t they?

  52. Grim
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:00 | #52

    @Michael

    What a wonderful description of ‘life’ you have just made: doesn’t live up to expectations, is often over budget (Credit Card debt, anyone ?) and can lead to unintended consequences.

  53. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:00 | #53

    @Michael

    Well my experience with I.T. is that it often doesn’t live up to expectations

    I doubt that “often” is a testable claim here. Typically, when people make such claims they make them because what happens most of the time doesn’t happen on a specific occasion when it causes a nuisance. Yesterday, I tried to set up our end of Connected Classroom video conference. Unlike all the other weeks it has worked, there was a glitch. It was damned annoying, but as it turned out, we’d been supplied some wrong data for the phone hook up. It happens.

    IT, like every other innovation developed by civilisation, creates new opportunities and unanticipated problems. Every solution creates a problem, and every problem focuses people on solutions. Yet at the end of each cycle, we stand better than at the end of the last. This is how progress happens.

  54. Michael
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:00 | #54

    That’s not to say technology shouldn’t be tried, your ideas have merit, just that you can expect problems and cost over-runs getting it to work. This is why I raised the cost-benefit argument of regulating dangerous activities earlier. I also agree on your comments regarding the insulation scheme. IMHO the solution to bad government isn’t less government, it’s better government.

  55. Grim
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:02 | #55

    @Michael

    What a wonderful description of ‘life’ you have just made: doesn’t live up to expectations, is often over budget (Credit Card debt, anyone ?) and can lead to unintended consequences.

    I guess we’d better just reject it on that basis, eh ?

  56. Michael
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:06 | #56

    @Fran Barlow
    Ever used Access Grid? I should have phrased it better – some technology “rarely” lives up to expectations, is never finished, just continually developed and is rarely used (but often demo’d).

  57. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:07 | #57

    @Michael

    That’s not to say technology shouldn’t be tried, your ideas have merit, just that you can expect problems and cost over-runs getting it to work.

    What Rumsfeld might have called an unknown unkown … When you brerak new ground i.e. when you engage in “discontinuous improvement” processes, you must justify it on the high risk high return basis. You have a budget in time and cost that is as close as informed guesswork allows and you hope that you are right. You do pilot work to see if your guesses have been close. The you scale to a wider project and see if you are still in the ball park. You allow your time schedule to reflect the downside risk of not doing anything or doing something less radical.

  58. Michael
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:08 | #58

    @Fran Barlow
    Although Queensland is probably one of the few places where Access Grid is successfully used.

  59. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:11 | #59

    The argument over big government versus small government is separate to the non argument over good government versus bad government. Nobody argues for bad government except on some occasions when defending big government.

  60. Peter T
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:16 | #60

    Terje

    While the evidence on the effects of stricter gun control in Australia is inconclusive (eg fewer gun suicides, but the trend was down before the laws), the main point is that guns are more lethal than most other weapons, and most deaths (and most homicides) arise not from calculation but from accident, stupidity, carelessness and immediate emotional reaction. So more guns (absent countervailing factors) means more accidental deaths. Eg, in the US more children die annually in gun accidents than murder victims.

    They knew this in the West. Dodge City had strict gun control laws – the innocent drinkers in the saloon were in more danger if guns were allowed than the bandits.

  61. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:18 | #61

    I wonder what RFID proximity detectors will sell for once your policy is in place Fran.

  62. Michael
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:24 | #62

    TerjeP (say tay-a) :
    Nobody argues for bad government except on some occasions when defending big government.

    No they just don’t bother trying to achieve good government – see the G.W.Bush presidency

  63. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 13:32 | #63

    Peter – the Howard reforms did not attempt to reduce the number of guns in society and as far as I can tell it didn’t. What it did aim to do was to displace semi-automatic weapons. Any claim that suicide is easier with a semi-automatic weapon kind of overlooks some basic physics an physiology. A single bullet will do and a second bullet is generally hard to achieve.

  64. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 14:29 | #64

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    I wonder what RFID proximity detectors will sell for once your policy is in place Fran.

    About what they sell for now, at a guess. Why would a large number of people want one?

    Just because you can do stuff, doesn’t mean you will do stuff. I suppose the occasional tin foil hat type might generate some business for Jaycar but I don’t see this as a serious business opportunity.

  65. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 14:39 | #65

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    Nobody argues for bad government except on some occasions when defending big government.

    Actually, nearly the opposite is the case. Arguing for bad government is generally arguing the case for less government. In Somalia, there has been nothing much like government for a generation, and hasn’t that worked out well?

    The real issue is not big versus small government but whether the area which is the target for government policy is an area in which the kind of collective action problem that exists is one that government in a broad sense is best equipped to resolve, and is serious enough to warrant resolution, bearing in mind the likely social costs of action, the probability of success etc …

    Rightwing populist slogans about “big government” amount to little more than vacuous handwaving.

  66. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 15:03 | #66

    Fran – perhaps if I was a bank robber I might use it to scan the area for devices known to be associate with the police before deciding on whether to proceed. Being able to keep tabs on the number of cops in any given area could be handy.

  67. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 15:21 | #67

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    perhaps if I was a bank robber I might use it to scan the area for devices known to be associate with the police before deciding on whether to proceed.

    I see. So you’re worried that there will be a technologically-driven surge in bank robberies based on RFIDs in guns? Amazing. Don’t you think that these days what they might discover is that banks have security guards in them? Cameras in the bank? Can you really be claiming that knowledge of where the police are in the minutes before a robbery is the threshhold data point for bank robberies?

    I think you need to stop watching hollywood action movies. They are fantasies you know.

    I gasp at the magnitude of the nonsense you are willing to utter to vent your cultural preferences.

  68. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 15:29 | #68

    So you don’t think the proximity of police acts as a crime deterent? Ever heard of radar detectors?

  69. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 15:53 | #69

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    So you don’t think the proximity of police acts as a crime deterent? Ever heard of radar detectors?

    Threshhold data reasoning flaw: Belief that one is in an area covered by effectuive policing is salient because to anyone tempted to speed is likely to regard the data value as decisive one way or the other.

    Knowledge that there are no police in the immediate area is not of benefit to putative bankrobbers because

    a) the area for which the data could be true would be very limited and too small to be of value given the likely window of opportunity necessary to rob a bank. Of course, believing that your wireless scanner is 100% accurate would be minimally necessary, and if there were even a 10% chance of error, the device would be of little value. And what does one do if one finds there are police locally? Wait until they go? Pick another bank?
    b) other security measures (e.g security windows, staining, security guards, cameras) are likely to be more salient and are unaffected by the value of (a) above

  70. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 17:14 | #70

    Fran – bank robbery was meant to provide the general idea not as a specific suggestion. But if you were about to rob a bank then knowing that police were in the proximity would be reasonable grounds for deferal. Criminals do plan things. The major deterent associated with police or armed citizens is the uncertainty. It is why the police advertise in regards to drink driving that they will be there when you least expect it. They are playing with peoples sence of risk. They don’t tell you that they will be on Main Street on Fridays and Back Street on Tuesdays and too busy with paperwork on Mondays to care.

  71. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 17:18 | #71

    p.s. The reasoning behind radio silence in combat situations also comes to mind.

  72. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 17:47 | #72

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    bank robbery was meant to provide the general idea not as a specific suggestion

    Ah … like your mascot, you’re a thought bubble guy. So what you’re saying is that notionally it might pose problems, but you can’t think of any way in practice that it might?

    But if you were about to rob a bank then knowing that police were in the proximity would be reasonable grounds for deferal

    So the one part of your analogy that is right undermines your broader claim — purchasing these things could deter bank robbery — without the reverse being even claimed by you — that knowing they weren’t handy — would urge them onwards. Ludicrous!

    The major deterent associated with police or armed citizens is the uncertainty

    Actually they would still be uncertain as false negatives are possible and even if right, the fact that they may not be within 100 metres is hardly enough.

    Criminals do plan things.

    Well the better ones do, but this is where your suggestion is weakest. A little bit of planning makes you realise that knowing (if you do) that the cops are at least 100 metres away isn’t close to being a sufficient condition for a bank robbery.

    The reasoning behind radio silence in combat situations also comes to mind.

    What are you on about? Radio silence in combat has nothing to do with the data supplied by RFIDs about police weaponry. If you can’t stay on the same page at least explain why you want to turn the page to something new.

  73. smiths
    March 9th, 2010 at 18:16 | #73

    i have pondered as this strange argument has flip flopped along what it is that i find unsettling about people that demand the right to shoot things,
    in a nut shell i find a person who kills animals for sport or pleasure a bit of a worry,
    i think it was different 30, 50 years ago, all perspectives were different,
    just take a few seconds to ponder holding the rifle in your hand and lining up the sights on a deers head or wherever, and pulling the trigger … for sport, or pleasure
    quite sad and sickening.

    another thing that struck me whilst reading is how amusing it is that you terje, crap on about freedoms but tell us all how to say your name everytime a post comes up, over and over again,
    i respectfully reserve the right to say your name however i choose

  74. Alicia
    March 9th, 2010 at 18:27 | #74

    And why is it exactly that our modern day free market economic “libertarians”
    * support torture of civilians and combatants by national govenments
    * celebrate and advocate the destruction of flora and fauna
    * want guns and whatever else it takes to do the above should the state fall short?

  75. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 18:45 | #75

    Smiths – I’m not denying you the freedom to say my name however you please. You are also free to call me rude names however it wouldn’t be a good way to maintain a positive vibe.

    Fran – yes I have thought bubbles. I’m here for dialogue not for winning formal debates. Some ideas are thought through some are off the cuff. Sorry if that disappoints. I must say though that the RFID idea isn’t that convincing. Perhaps once I turn it over in my head for longer my thought bubbles will condense into some more considered thoughts.

  76. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 9th, 2010 at 18:51 | #76

    Alicia – for the record.

    1. I oppose torture. Always have.
    2. I think we should protect out native flora and forna. You can shoot the feral cats however.
    3. The primary reason for owning guns which remains prohibited in Australia is self defence. You can already get a gun for control of pests.

  77. Fran Barlow
    March 9th, 2010 at 18:59 | #77

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    I have no problem with thought bubbles … but I wonder about the gas that inflates them sometimes …

  78. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 10th, 2010 at 07:40 | #78

    I could say the same.

  79. Alice
    March 10th, 2010 at 16:55 | #79

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Why do you need a gun for self defence except against a lawless society Terje and the means to enforce the law…..called the police.

    They have been doing a mostly good job here, except for the occasional patch of corruption….Id rather have the government do that job with my taxes, with controls over corruption, than own a gun and wonder whether to shoot.

    You can stick that gun argument you know where Terje. More guns in the hands of the public and less guns in the hands of the police, means more guns in the hands of the mentally ill.

    Id take my chances with the police anyday over some lunatic in possession of a gun. I dont want to go for shooting lessons unless the government keeps getting rid of police stations like they have been doing. Im an old lady. I dont want to shoot a gun ever. I dont my kid shooting a gun ever (not even pig shooting – Im a city dweller). I dont want to have to rely on my old man’s eyesight and a gun. I dont want to have to worry where I store it so the grandkids cant find the damn ugly thing. Unless there is a civil war on – a gun is a very ugly thing. I dont need that kind of stress in my life, so you can have your libertarian gun slinging freedom desires somewhere else (like the shooters party – except they dont have much of a following do they?).

    Ill take majority views on that – not minority views like yours Terje.

    You need to get mainstream conservative on this one Terje….which usually you are. For you, this is way off track.

  80. smiths
    March 10th, 2010 at 17:50 | #80

    even the commercial open market manufacture of guns is something i find problematic,

    as Bounty Killer and Morgan Heritage rightly said in their ragga track ‘Guns in the ghetto’

    Don’t blame my people for the guns in the ghetto,
    you bring them down deh (bring them down deh)
    We no have no Smith n Wessun gun factory in the ghetto,
    you bring them down deh, (bring them down deh)’

    not that i expect any of you to be familiar with this particular tune

  81. Freelander
    March 10th, 2010 at 18:05 | #81

    Guns don’t kill people. People with guns kill people.

  82. Freelander
    March 10th, 2010 at 18:11 | #82

    Given that Libertarians claim that they respect the rights of others, it amuses me how many of them wish to have guns with the clear interest of infringing on the most basic rights of others. But then hypocrisy seems an essential ingredient in the make up of the average Libertarian.

  83. Alicia
    March 10th, 2010 at 18:24 | #83

    @Alice

    Ah you’re a tonic Alice truly, such bog obvious female common sense, fabulously expressed, from the heart. Love it. It’s why I named myself after you.

    And hats off too to: Freelander, Paul Walter, Jim Birch, Donald Oats, smiths, Fran Barlow (with the exception of nukes issue) JQ of course, and the many other voluble bright spark regular others who make this site such a joy to read and so wildly instructive.

  84. TerjeP (say tay-a)
    March 10th, 2010 at 18:57 | #84

    Alicia – your comments are noted. I’m figuring you don’t want a response given where you want me to stick things. Right now I’m content to leave you to your bigotry. You obviously carry some prejudices that I’m unlikely to dent.

  85. Alice
    March 10th, 2010 at 19:21 | #85

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)
    Nothing wrong with Alicia’s views Terje….as for bigotry; you may want to, in a quiet moment do some navel gazing on the freedom to carry guns view.

    You are clearly outnumbered here.

  86. March 10th, 2010 at 19:30 | #86

    Alice,
    Being outnumbered does not make you wrong.
    .
    Freelander,
    People with knives, wires, scissors, bows and arrows, poisons, bare hands and many other things also kill people. What, if anything, was your point?

  87. Freelander
    March 10th, 2010 at 19:45 | #87

    @Andrew Reynolds

    And you claim to have a sense of humour.

  88. Fermi
    March 10th, 2010 at 21:38 | #88

    @TerjeP (say tay-a)

    It’s funny how people who consider themselves to be “open minded” are so extremely closed-minded, and yes I agree, downright bigoted when it comes to the issue of guns.

    People fear what they don’t understand, it’s as simple as that.

    Take Alice and Freelander as a prime examples: bigotry plus the urge to comform to the “mainstream” makes it almost impossible to have a rational argument on the matter.

  89. March 10th, 2010 at 21:41 | #89

    Are the Greens a real alternative?

    Environmentalists might expect Green MLA Greg Barber, to back another environmentalist, Kelvin Thomson, rather than supply quotes that could make him out unfairly to be racist. Wedge Politics we don’t need from Mr Barber MLA who represents the Northern Metropolitan Region of Melbourne in the Legislative Council at State level, which Kelvin Thomson represents in the Lower House at the Federal level. What’s going on? Are the Greens for real?

  90. Tony G
    March 10th, 2010 at 23:55 | #90

    Daggett said

    “Are the Greens for real?”

    No they are red.

  91. Shem Bennett
    March 11th, 2010 at 00:05 | #91

    Alice :
    Why do you need a gun for self defence except against a lawless society Terje and the means to enforce the law…..called the police.

    When there’s a policeman small enough to carry on my waist I’ll think there’s a good reason not to be armed.

    The police do not provide any kind of defence against crimes. The majority of police action is merely punitive action against crimes already committed.

    I used to be part of the anti-gun crew until I did some reading. I’m now convinced that on the balance, gun ownership has little impact on crime, and that a gun wielding target is less likely to become a victim than an unarmed target. If the rate of criminals being shot increases, that’s a price I’m willing to pay.

  92. Freelander
    March 11th, 2010 at 00:16 | #92

    @Shem Bennett

    I agree with you. I should be allowed to carry a gun and nobody else should be allowed to. That’s what would make me safe.

  93. March 11th, 2010 at 01:02 | #93

    people (quite reasonably) fear they may be maimed or killed by the people with guns who are in the same physical space as they are. And actually people (including children) are indeed maimed and killed by guns.

    And every year, people are raped by homosexuals, ripped off by Jews, and beaten by African Americans.

    Therefore we should punish all those people for things that possibly could happen, right?

  94. March 11th, 2010 at 01:08 | #94

    police weapons are also lost and stolen. Would they have RFIDs also?

    Why not?

    Because then any criminal organisation with the resources to afford it would be able to track the movement of every armed policeman in the country at all times? And therefore would be at massive tactical advantage since their own guns would not have trackers in them. The police would in fact be sitting ducks.

    Really, give it a couple of seconds thought before posting.

  95. March 11th, 2010 at 01:16 | #95

    When there’s a policeman small enough to carry on my waist I’ll think there’s a good reason not to be armed.

    And coincidentally that’s exactly what a lot of gun control advocates do. General Populace having guns? No sirree.

    Celebrity gun-control advocates like Rosie O’Donnell and politicians employing mercenaries with guns as bodyguards? Well if you’re rich enough, why not?

    If they don’t see having guns for protections as necessary, why do they take bodyguards with them everywhere they go? A bodyguard, even one without a gun, is far more personal protection than is afforded to any normal person.

  96. Fran Barlow
    March 11th, 2010 at 06:02 | #96

    @Shem Bennett

    and that a gun wielding target is less likely to become a victim than an unarmed target.

    The pity is that the statistics say that the reverse is true. Those possessing guns tend to get shot more often. That’s probably a statistical anomaly since it probably includes criminals carrying guns and criminals are more likely top carry guns than the populace at large, but it does make a separate interesting point.

    People are also highly likely to be shot by their own weapons. In the US, use of guns in domestic violence cases is common. Use of such weapons in domestic violence situations by policemen, prison officers and security guards is also statistically higher.

    @Yobbo

    Because then any criminal organisation with the resources to afford it would be able to track the movement of every armed policeman in the country at all times?

    Why would they do that when significant criminal organisations find it much more organisationally feasible to collude with the police to commit crimes? Technical feasibility of such a thing would also be very low. Read the discussion with Terje. I suggest you should take a little of your own advice about thinking before posting.

  97. March 11th, 2010 at 08:46 | #97

    Why would they do that when significant criminal organisations find it much more organisationally feasible to collude with the police to commit crimes?

    Because they can’t bribe every last police officer. Criminal organisations also use radio scanners to monitor police movements. Being able to track their weapons would make it even easier.

  98. Fran Barlow
    March 11th, 2010 at 09:09 | #98

    @Yobbo

    they can’t bribe every last police officer

    [sigh] they don’t have to bribe or taint every last police officer — just enough to get the stuff done they want to get done.

    Criminal organisations also use radio scanners to monitor police movements. Being able to track their weapons would make it even easier

    I’m going to pretend you’re one of my students (but depart from the usual child protection constraints) and write you an HSC-style question.

    In order to better control the movement and storgae of weapons the State of Callathumpia has decided to install RFID devices in all weapons capable of propelling a projectile through explosion more than ten metres, and the ammunition.

    You are in charge of a criminal network operating within Callathumpia, the cash turnover of which derives from robbery and trade in contraband and controlled substances.

    1. Assess the technical feasibility of intercepting the data streams and the marginal organisational value of the resultant information one could derive from the data stream …

    In your answer specify the financial, operational, schedule and technical feasibility issues to be considered and the assumptions you have made to attach values to them.

    2. What other solutions might better facilitate your organisations goals?

    3. What constraints would the system have on your own organisation’s activities.

  99. March 11th, 2010 at 10:49 | #99

    Can anyone point out the flaws in the arguments put in this 4’30″ Brasscheck TV video The truth about “gun control”? The statistics show absolutely no evidence that, in the US, laws against gun ownership reduce the rate of crime.

    Some months ago, a US leading gun control advocate was exposed as possessing his own hand gun. For politicians who have their own guns and/or enjoy 24/7 police protection to deny to ordinary citizens, including elderly ladies, the same right is the utmost hypocrisy.

  100. Andre
    March 11th, 2010 at 11:02 | #100

    On Gun Control

    based on the folowing three assumptions

    1. It is unlikley gun availability and use will ever be ellimiated,
    2. Gun control laws will have minimal impact on the behaviour of criminals, albeit the laws provide a mechanism to prosecute these gun wielding crminals once they break the law. Of course a law that issues the death penalty for gun wielding criminal may change how much the criminals “care”. But I would oppose the death penalty.
    3. The likelihood that police will arrive just in time to thwart a gun crime is small.

    It makes a lot of sense to familiarise yourself with responsible use of guns and perhaps under certain circumstances equip yourself with a weapon in the event of a percieved threat.

    Of course in a perfect world we don’t need guns and I would be all for that as well. But is that a real possibility ?

Comment pages
1 2 8410
Comments are closed.