why not. they might not care about quality, but care about funds they can raise if sell it.
3/3/2015 Another San Francisco Smash and grab
Music Lovers audio in San Francisco was the latest victim.
Appears one of the owners lives in a condo above the store and was able to scream at the looters.
there is obvious damage to the store and loss of inventory
does this mean the general population is coming around as to the benefits of high end audio?
Appears one of the owners lives in a condo above the store and was able to scream at the looters.
there is obvious damage to the store and loss of inventory
does this mean the general population is coming around as to the benefits of high end audio?
55 responses Add your response
For my personal and business protection I'm allowed to cary-concealed and have 15-round Walther PPQ 380 for open cary and Walther PPK 9mm for concealed cary. Both pistols especially PPQ have power to go through most body armors... I would still still think more than twice before pulling trigger to the one stealing my inventory, because I can loose more money on lawsuits from presumably woulded victim(as you know it's quite hard to kill with one pistol round). To avoid wounds AND lawsuits (as one of the gun store owners said) you should use shotgun. This way there will be no questions to 'victim'.:-) Another option is to use cut bullets, but expertise may spot the change and press charges. When cut bullet hits target, it splits and does not go straight through but starts traveling at random angles inside. |
"03-05-15: Onhwy61 Taters, what's wrong with you? A gun is the solution to every problem in America. The NRA says so." We finally agree on something. It seems like I've underestimated you. Well said. Taters, Guns are like tubes and cables. Everyone says you won't fix any problems with them. Don't knock um till you try them. |
Here, on this site, I was operating under the mistaken assumption that folk here were of a higher caliber. I'm aware of the temptation to get on one's soapbox (guilty). Also, I've been around long enough to understand the fallacy of thinking a gun will solve a problem. Here's a list of what's affectionately termed gunfail All the best, Nonoise |
Gun control won't stop ALL criminals but it sure as hell puts a demonstrably huge dent in criminals getting guns. There's so much regulation out there making it nigh impossible to regulate guns that it's having the reverse effect allowing all sorts of criminals to get guns. People tend to forget this is a big industry that uses fear and divisive tactics in order to make a killing (literally and figuratively). I like and own guns but had no problem having them registered when I bought them. I've got nothing to hide. It's the most dangerous product out there and needs regulation. All the best, Nonoise |
The problem in our society is not too many guns. There are numerous other problems causing the breakdown in order. For example: The free flow of heroin, meth and cocaine across our southern border. The break-up of the traditional family and the related breakdown of order in many schools. Too many fathers feeling no responsibility to provide for and raise the children they produce. Criminals being portrayed as victims or heroes and the cops being portrayed as racist goons by the news and popular media (movies, music, tv, etc.). Everyone except caucasian men being portrayed as victims (the war on women, charges of racism, homophobia, etc. being thrown around constantly). The decline of personal responsibility and the ever growing belief that government is supposed to provide whatever we want. The belief that successful people (except for sports and entertainment celebrities) have stolen their prosperity from others. If we could reverse those trends guns would be no problem. |
"03-28-15: Schubert If there were enough decent jobs for all paying enough to raise a family problems would be largely gone.Self- righteous comments above are about symptoms not causes." You may be right, but I think more jobs would only be a partial fix at best. You need to look at all the different reasons people steal: Drug addicts, gangs, people with background issues and other related activities. If you offered people like this jobs, even if the pay was noticeably higher, do you really think they would take them? I'm sure a few would, but for the most part, I believe most wouldn't. And even if they did, would they even be competent enough to do the job and not get fired? Again, maybe a few would. |
"03-29-15: Schubert Zd542, nothing personal but you simply, for whatever reason, lack the vision to see beyond the static reality you see before you which gives you a distorted image of human nature. Decent jobs for all would not be an instant cure but it would be a sure one." The only reason my image is distorted is because I don't agree with you. People commit crimes for many reasons. Most of them have nothing to do with being able to get a job. I understand that the economy isn't perfect right now, but there's still more opportunity here in the US than most other places. If you look at the problem objectively, its clear that the poor, criminal or not, don't maximize their opportunities to get ahead. As a society, we just enable the behaviour. There's no better example of what I'm talking about than that TV show Intervention. Every single time they get people to stop what they are doing and go get help, its all done the exact same way. They put people in a position where their behaviour won't be supported any more. Left with no other choice, it forces people to go into rehab. It only works about half the time, but its far more effective than any other solution. You can't just give things away to people and hope that fixes a problem, even if its a job. The only way a person is going to be successful at any profession is if they want it for themselves. It doesn't matter how much you or I want someone else to succeed. The person that need a job has to want a job. Otherwise you're just pissing in the wind. |
Take a look at income disparities worldwide and you'll see a common thread with every one of them. The countries with the smallest income disparities have the greatest levels of satisfaction, education, health outcomes, the lowest incidences of drug use and teenage pregnancies, lower incarceration rates, and an overall higher standard of living for it's citizens. We are no where near the top and if remember, near the bottom of the middle rankings. The latest congressional budget proposal eliminates the ACA and takes away health care from tens of millions, increases military spending by putting it on a credit card (again) and eliminates the estate tax which only affects the richest 3,700 families (since only they qualify for the tax) and everyone here wonders why we have problems. Get ready for another veto and more obstruction since the status quo is just fine for those already enriched by this mess. All the best, Nonoise |
"03-29-15: Nonoise Take a look at income disparities worldwide and you'll see a common thread with every one of them. The countries with the smallest income disparities have the greatest levels of satisfaction, education, health outcomes, the lowest incidences of drug use and teenage pregnancies, lower incarceration rates, and an overall higher standard of living for it's citizens." That's a pretty general statement. I don't know what countries you are talking about? Not only that, how do you know that income disparity is the cause of all the problems you list? Things like this are never as simple as some people make them out to be. Also, and this just my personal view, but I really don't trust most studies and statistics. Why should I? There's too much influence in the way most studies are funded. Add to that the current political environment, and I see nothing but the potential for bias. "We are no where near the top and if remember, near the bottom of the middle rankings." Someone should tell the millions of people tunnelling their way into our country, or climbing over the walls this. Maybe they'll try to get into one of the "good" countries on your list. |
Zd542 is right. A persons income has absolutley no indication of whether they will steal or not. Actually studies have shown that people who are wealthy are more likley to steal, lie and cheat than those with lesser means. Also you have to look at the various forms of theft and the reasons why people do it. You cannot throw out a blanket assumption that good paying jobs will fix the problem. Cooperations posting record profits lie, cheat and steal at a rate much higher than those near the bottom rung of the income ladder. |
Zd542, That statement was simply a result from looking at income disparities and then combing through and collating data and lo! Better lifestyles, higher standards of living, lower crime rates, lower abortion rates, less mental illnesses, better health outcomes and better education were all present in the countries with the least income inequality. There was nothing general about it. Our country is ranked around #42 (and in one survey is ranked as the 5th worst in inequality) but it's large enough and still has that cache of being a place to start over. Conventional wisdom still dominates the minds of the masses, truth be damned. What other have stated about simply creating more jobs IS the answer. Keynsian macroeconomics has and still works, if you let it. Our economic situation is not a natural occurrence but one of policy, and policy can change if we (or they) want it to. Sometimes I get the impression that some here enjoy the suffering of others. All the best, Nonoise |
"That statement was simply a result from looking at income disparities and then combing through and collating data and lo! Better lifestyles, higher standards of living, lower crime rates, lower abortion rates, less mental illnesses, better health outcomes and better education were all present in the countries with the least income inequality. There was nothing general about it." Nothing is that simple. "What other have stated about simply creating more jobs IS the answer. Keynsian macroeconomics has and still works, if you let it. Our economic situation is not a natural occurrence but one of policy, and policy can change if we (or they) want it to. Sometimes I get the impression that some here enjoy the suffering of others." I don't want to come across as mean here, but that's ridiculous. An economy based on Keynesian principles can't work. If you think I'm wrong on this, fine. Give me some examples of successful implementation. I can't think of any. |
Keynesian economics brought us out of the great depression and gave rise to the "Golden Age of Capitalism". It was the oil shock of the 70s that gave folk pause and had us scrambling for answers but there will always be something out of left field that comes across as a form of shock. Adjustments are always made. Marxists didn't like it for fear it would lead to totalitarianism (which it doesn't) and right wingers hate it because it calls for government to step in and stimulate during recessions (which would prove them wrong). It's still in the main and even it's present day detractors come up every now and then with a remodeled version that suits their purposes, only to be exposed. Paul Krugman details this and many other points on a regular basis. He can come across as snarky but the right wing nut jobs out there just tire the whole argument. How long can their arguments be shot down only to resurface and be shot down again? A cursory look at it's history and present day use would render your perspective as disingenuous so I chose to think you just don't really know. All the best, Nonoise |
"A cursory look at it's history and present day use would render your perspective as disingenuous so I chose to think you just don't really know." You can think whatever you like, but if I'm the one who doesn't know, how come you can't answer a simple question? Since you know this system works as a statement of fact, give me an example of a country where this is in place and successfully working? I don't want to hear someones theory on the matter. Everyone has a theory on something. If you can't do that, then all you're doing is guessing. "Keynesian economics brought us out of the great depression and gave rise to the "Golden Age of Capitalism"." Just because our involvement in WW2 helped bring us out of the great depression, doesn't mean our entire country changed over to a Keynesian system. It just means that the war was a catalyst. At this point, I think we should just leave this topic alone. I'm not going to convince you of anything, and unless you can show me some actual proof, I see no reason to alter my opinion. |
Zd542, You are making by far the most logical and intelligent arguement here. How anyone can support Keyseian policies at this point in time given it failures is just drinking the leftist sour Koolaid. I had to endure this type of indoctrination in college. The realities of life have taught me otherwise. Spend some time watching MSNBC, just pure nonsense. |
Anti Keynesianism is ripe and rampant on the right wing blogosphere and has been for quite some time. Government investment in our economy after the Great Depression and after WWII gave us a foot up and eventually the greatest middle class in history. That was due to Keynes. Even Nixon proclaimed he was "now a Keynesian". Supply side economics took over after the oil shock of the 70s and how good did that work for you? Give huge tax breaks to the ubber wealthy and they'll piss what's left over on the rest of us. Trickle down? Right. To categorize Keynes as leftist shows what a remarkably closed mind one has. He was far from being a leftie. Just because FDR adopted his policies and it worked better than anyone expected is no reason to write it off as leftist. To say that WWII was the stimulus is a bit naive as it, by itself, is not responsible for it. What we did, economically was the answer, and that was government spending on infrastructure, education, housing and business which helped jump start the economy. If we had chosen to not invest there would have been no growth. I just love revisionists. Why did we start turning back to Keynes in '07? Why is he getting more and more credit in economic circles. Why are his models being tried again? Why is Krugman making the rounds, globally, lending his expertise to help change the ridiculous course of austerity? Why is it having a positive effect when heeded? You have Laffer and Moore, on the right, as your gurus and they're always reframing their arguments after being discredited. Add Rand and Ryan for your political equivalents. You can set your clock by them. They're right wing hacks. Paid carnival barkers for right wing think tanks. Now there's an oxymoron. I'll just keep on following Krugman, Piketty, Stiglitz, Mankiw and others who have a more thoroughly nuanced understanding of the man. I'll keep reading up on those who don't conflate economics with political leanings and on just what works. All the best, Nonoise |
