Topic: 92 year old WWII veteran kills intruder with rifle (Read 8643 times)

I haven't managed to read the entire thread, but saw this post, which I agree with.

I support the right to own and bear firearms. But, retaliation must be proportional. Killing so quickly does seem too much to me. He should have given some type of warning before shooting (warning shot is the best since that leaves evidence), or at least assuring himself the burglar was armed and represented a lethal threat.

I don't support what this man has done (if it really happened as described by OP's link)

My home security system is not designed to keep people out, rather to limit their choices once they have made the wrong decision to enter. I can track their movements around the house while I control lighting and locks. Maybe it's because my Dad was a cop that I learned not to fearfully avoid bad guys. We go get them and make them afraid.   

So if criminals still want to rob houses, and they know being shot at is a real risk, why don't all intrusions now simply begin with the intruder quietly moving through, and executing everyone in the house before they are discovered? Then they can peacefully proceed to rob the place at will.

Do they have some stupid belief (beyond the existing requirement of stupidity to rob someone) that what they are doing is not going to end up with them being shot to death? By the way some people are talking, why on earth would they think this in the US?

I suppose the most stupid will eventually be killed off and the less retarded ones that pre-execute will thrive, so it is naturally correcting either way.

I suggest a genre of fiction. Not a specific book. Based on your vision of the future, you may enjoy that genre.

Also, as a suggestion, rather than getting butthurt over a fiction recommendation, you may wish to attempt to use logic and reason to refute my position.

You are being intellectually dishonest and over-simplifying.

why should i delete that?
some guy tells me to try and read a book and i tell him he can go fuck himself. seems to be a pretty coherent continuation of the "discussion".

quoted before he deletes/changes it

and this is how ideological discussions like this almost always end up.

The Utopian dream shattered by the reality of who and what Man truly is.

This Great Society proponent can not even remain rational in discussing it theoretically, and when finally backed into his corner, he disappears, becasuse he ran out of compromised data and talking points.

maybe that attitude flies at your local gun owners and pig wrestlers meetings. i however dont need to read your bs. goodbye.

You're looking at the problems of the current system, and assuming that any other system will also have those problems. You're probably at least partly right, but the fact remains that if you steal the same percentage of a poor person's productivity as you do a rich person, you're taking a larger relative value from the poor person. Here's a thought: Maybe don't steal anyone's productivity?

I have a very good vision of what it will probably look like. It's hard to predict details, however, because the market is comprised of a large number of individuals, and each individual makes different choices. It's clear, however, that if there is a market need for a good or service, it will be provided, and the laws of economics dictate that it will be provided at the lowest rate profitable.

Wait, now it's not the skill of the doctor, but the procedure that determines the cost? I don't think you've thought this through very far, since what you describe really isn't far off the market system, with the exception that you're subsidizing the worst doctors by paying them government funding to perform the "basic" procedures that even they can't screw up. (And thus stealing business from RNs and other lower-trained medical workers.)


How can you deride me for saying "You just think the market will take care of everything," and then in the same post, write that? It's amazing the amount of verbiage you can spout without saying a damn thing. Have you considered a career in politics? You seem perfectly suited, in both skillset and mentality to be an elected official. And FYI, Edward Bellamy did indeed fantasize about an ideal society for today, well before 1912 (He was wrong, but that's beside the point). It's called science fiction, you should think about maybe reading some.

you are making it a theoretical problem. there is no way to exactly determine how much money is worth for a specific person. the practical problem is that people with $1 000 000 income usually don't pay taxes at all. the ones paying the bills for everyone are usually those with $50 000 - $150 000 per year, enough to be be paying significant taxes but still so little that you don't have real flexibility in investments. someone with say $800 000 to spare each year has way way more options, plus he can afford to pay $10 000 to someone evaluating those options.



of course. thats because you don't propose much of anything. you just claim the market will take care of everything.


there are no two systems. most doctors will do both basic treatments and those requiring extra payment. simply because it's not that easy to find so many wealthy customers. plus sometimes there isn't a better treatment then the basic one, recommending anything else will just be ripping of your patients.


why would i have a society in mind i consider "done"? you might have noticed we live in a time of rapid technological advancement. any society i propose based on current technology would be outdated by the time 10% of what i proposed could be realized. in fact, proposing any static utopia in a time in which several decades or centuries of rapid technological changes are ahead of us is a purely theoretical excercise.
and its not just technology. the fact that we will run into resource shortages pretty soon will make the situation even more unstable and unpredictable.
in my opinion, right now you can only realistically think about mitigating the growth pains. i have no idea how a society could look like in a century. we might have fought over resources most of the century and all live in poverty or found a way to digitalize consciousness and live in clones adapted to life on mars 
just think about some guy fantasizing in 1912 about an ideal society for today. they had radios and horses ffs  .
and that doesn't even account for the fact that technological advancement is still accelerating. a lot more happened from 1962-2012 than from 1912-1962.

Here's the thing: If you take 20% of $1000, you're left with $800. If you take 20% from $1 000 000, you're left with $800 000. $200 is a lot more to a poor man than $200 000 is to a rich one. The disproportion comes in not in the tax itself, but in the relative value of what you're taking.

Tsk, tsk.... What makes you think an anarchist would be in favor of caging people? Do you think it is possible that I know more about what you propose than you know of what I propose?

Wait, you have both doctors who get paid a small, set amount per patient, and doctors who can charge more? You have free healthcare and market healthcare? What doctor would work in the free healthcare system? Clearly, only those who would not be able to compete in the market. In other words, not mediocre, but poor. So the free healthcare is not basic, it's the worst available.


Clearly, you have an end goal, yes? A society that you would consider "done"? If it's not my Fornitland, then what is it? What would your Fornitland look like?

Forcing people to ask for a same price for a same service IS planned economy.  It's called price control.  And it brings nothing good.  Do you think a bureaucrat is better suited than the market to determine what is the appropriate price for a given service?

a flat tax is flat. there is nothing disporportionate about it. you already get your free income and above that, for every dollar you earn you are left with, say, 0.80$. when you look at how many exceptions and loopholes current progressive taxes have, this is a far better system. you always and instantly know much money the state will take from you. you don't have to take into account the progression, varying exempt amounts, write-offs etc.
and you know all the exceptions always work for the people who have the time, money and expertise to work the system. they never work for the poor.


its not about sensibilities. you create a convoluted, expensive and potentially live-endangering solution to avoid a simple and actually not that expensive solution because you consider it unjust. you rather buy guns, build prisons and accept whatever collateral damage crimes cause just to avoid giving some morons the free food and shelter they will eventually get in prison anyway.


yay, you get it. fast and mediocre, exactly. thats why its called basic healthcare. if you want better service, go to the best doctors, they will charge you extra on top. thats how those systems work. the doctor gets the fixed amount for the service and if he thinks he is so good he can charge extra, he is free to do so.


i am not proposing an entirely new state. i just propose improvements on existing ones. while i believe having a vision what a society should be like is important, in the end, you can never start from scratch. pretending you could won't result in anything that could ever be applied to any real world situation.
for the united states, i wouldn't dare to claim i could propose an allround solution to all its problems. i believe the united states are already past the point of no return, surviving because other nations still buy dollars. so i would focus on infrastrucure and education. because that is stuff no one can just buy and carry away from you when the shit finally hits the fan.

My apologies. I assumed you would prefer to tax the rich more, rather than taxing the poor disproportionately with a flat tax. FYI: I am not a Rand advocate. I'm an anarchist. Rand got many things wrong.

Indeed... because here's where the armed part comes in. Not the poor, but those they would steal from. Read the article on page 1 of this thread for info on what happens when someone decides to steal instead of working for a living. And no, the bright and productive do not stop working when they get a basic sustenance. Instead, they get upset about paying for those who did stop working. And no, the stupid and lazy don't turn into ambitious, inventive people just because you starve them. Those that don't, however, will starve. And I apologize if I offend your European sensibilities with what I am about to say, but those who are not willing to output the energy to keep themselves alive are a drain, not a resource. When they starve, it will be their own doing.


"the bad doctor doesnt earn anything because nobody is forced to go to him."

Except he is paid by the state, is he not? That's what "free healthcare" means, you know. State-run hospitals. There are two options for state-run healthcare, from the doctor's point of view: Either he gets paid a set salary, or he gets paid per patient. If he gets paid a set salary, then he has no incentive to hurry, and can take his time with each patient. Of course, he also has no real incentive to do well, since even if his patients leave him, he still gets paid the same amount. If he gets paid per patient, he now has incentive to get as many patients through as possible. As you point out, he doesn't have to be a great doctor, just a fast, mediocre one. And since all the doctors have the same incentives, all will be fast, and mediocre.

Again, I suggest that if I have mischaracterized your ideal society, why don't you correct me, and run through your interpretation of the incentives in those societies. I'd honestly like to see how you predict your society unfolding. In short, I am asking you to state your case. You may even be able to convince me.

fornitland is depicted in the novel faith of the fallen, pretty much by the letter. i guess ayn rand disciples just aren't that original.
its no surprise fornitland has a progressive tax even though i explicitly promoted a flat tax. overall you twist whatever i stated to fit your distopia of a state, where you get little to nothing for your work.  i never promoted any of that. that happens when you don't listen but just expect things to fit into your dogma.

regarding your prognosis for both countries: you might want to try and watch actual human behavior. the bright and productive don't just suddenly stop working because they got bread and water for free. and the stupid and lazy don't just turn into ambitious, inventive people because you starve them.
when people get desperate, they resort to crime. in the end, that will prove to be way more expensive than a little food and a place to sleep.

your prognosis on economics is equally flawed. when you you have several doctors, each getting the exact same amount for a service, all patients will flock to those doctors that provide the best service for that price. the bad doctor doesnt earn anything because nobody is forced to go to him. except when there are too few doctors, in which case there is a high incentive to become a doctor, because its easy to outperform the bad doctors and get a lot of patients without being excellent. you just have to be better than the worst doctors that are still good enough to have enough patients.
you somehow always get this mixed up with a planned economy, with a fixed amount of doctors and other restrictions. you really need to step out of your black/white capitalism/communism template.

looooolwuuut?

"Terry Goodkind propaganda novel"?

Please explain.

Edit: turns out Goodkind is an objectivist. I had no idea. I assure you, though, that my post above is not a paraphrase of one of his novels, it is a logical examination of the incentives in each society. And yes, I do expect you to respond to it.

Suggestion as to how: take Fornitland and Myrkultopia, and run through your interpretation of the incentives in those societies.

i hope you don't expect me to respond in detail to that paraphrase of a terry goodkind propaganda novel.

I can see that you have a massively distorted view of capitalism, and of economics in general.

Let's say we have two countries, We'll call them Fornitland and Myrkultopia.

Fornitland has a progressive (the rich pay a higher rate) income tax, massively taxes inheritances, especially for the rich, provides everyone a basic living allowance, state-run schooling and healthcare, and basically runs things very socialistically.

Myrkultopia, on the other hand, has little to no taxes, for anyone, provides no living allowance, lets the market provide schooling and healthcare, and basically runs things very capitalistically.

In Fornitland the poor have very little incentive to become rich, for if they do, they'll only be taxed harder, and have most of their hard-earned gains stripped from them when they die. Since they will have their basic needs taken care of regardless, there is very little need for ambition, since no work will get a person little less than working, and hard work will mostly get stripped away. Schools and hospitals, and, indeed any industry which the state deems "necessary for the public good" and nationalizes, are monopolies, with their pay coming not from the customer, but from the state. Since the customer sees no cost, they will use the service at every opportunity (good for schools, if they have the capacity, not so good for hospitals). This leads to supply shortages - overcrowding in schools, long waiting lists and overworked doctors in hospitals. In both of those industries especially, but also in others, supply shortages lead to poor quality service, as teachers struggle to take care of 40+ students at a time, and doctors rush from one patient to the next. Since the service provider sees no loss from poor service - after all, if it's paid for by the state, he gets paid the same for poor service as for good - there's no incentive to improve service, and little incentive for new service providers to enter the field.

Now, let's flee to Myrkultopia - as most of the populace of Fornitland would, eventually. In Myrkultopia there is every incentive for the poor to become rich, since the rich can afford nicer things, and those nicer things don't get taken away. Nor does their hard-earned money get stripped away to feed the unambitious poor. The poor have every incentive to apply themselves profitably to society, and to get the best rate that they can for their services, because if they do not, they will starve, unless they can rely on the charity of friends and family. Schools and hospitals are run on a for-profit basis, and like other service industries, lose money if they do not get customers. Since the poor need schooling and healthcare too, there would be service providers willing to provide for them, but the service may not be as good as that provided to the rich. Still better than the service provided by the state-run hospitals and schools in Fornitland, though. Poor service is rewarded with less money, and good service gets more. If there is a shortage, then the providers can demand more pay, and the high pay rates drive an increase in service providers. Lack of barriers to entry into those - and indeed as many as possible -  industries ensure rapid response to increased demand, and provide opportunities for ambitious poor to get a head start on becoming rich.

So, no, people would not flee to "where all the poor people are armed and starving," but to where the poor have opportunity and incentive to become the rich.


I think books, at least, will remain a luxury item, and not disappear. DVDs will probably go away as digital media becomes more prevalent. But a book is an entirely different experience on paper than it is on a screen. People in the future, instead of saying "Oh, wow, look at that bigscreen TV!" will say, "Oh, wow, look at that library!" It will be, once again, a sign of wealth and taste to have a lot of paper books. Many menial jobs will likely be automated. An automated supermarket is a huge capital outlay, though, so it's likely they will be relatively rare. Physical banks will probably go the way of the Dinosaurs, especially if Bitcoin or it's successors catch on. My point being, that automation will take care of a great many things, and shift the workforce, but I doubt robots will ever take care of everything.

I'm not a US citizen, but from what I know of american people, not all of them support gun ownership and therefore not all of them actually have weapons at home or know how to use it.  My guess is that burglars think the risk is acceptable.


I very much doubt a burglar is motivated by hunger.  Otherwise when someone robs a grocery store, he would go after the food, not the cashier.

Since I am curious, is it normal for people in the USA to have a weapon that easily available?

If the answer is yes, why would people take the chance of breaking in? are they that desperate for drugs? only explanation I can think off.
(People get free food if they need in the USA right? food stamps or something)