Well if you can't shoot and intruder next best thing...

[Thomas Rogers]

R Shek,



Frankly the comparisons to car insurance and car driving don't seem to hold water to me.



I NEED car insurance, one, as it's required since I have a lien on the vehicle and two, my state requires liability insurance, so that's how the insurance analogy is moot, IMHO. As for the assumed risk of driving, it's just that, an "assumed risk for a reward." The reward is mobility. For me, I don't see a similar "reward" for gun ownership...when that ownership is for home protection only. The only possible reward is that I can protect myself, and it's a huge reward IF there is ever an intruder, but at what risk comes that seemingly highly unlikely realized reward. That's the part I struggle with.



People stealing stuff from car ports isn't a reason to buy a gun, IMHO. Yes, people have the right to protect themselves. I don't think people have the right to blow away their neighbors teenager (the most likely culprit) because he snags something out of a garage or carport in which is typically a "crime of opportunity." The responsible thing to do there, IMHO, is keep your stuff locked.



You say break ins are rare...that might have been the case with our without guns. I live in a neighborhood where I am pretty sure less than 10% have guns in the home, and "TRUE" break-ins (breaking and entering) are very, very rare. But, we have had a few things lifted from unlocked, and opened parked cars and garages. Guns won't stop that from happening, but locked doors will.



TJR

 

[TomT]

Actually, from my experience, having to clean up the blood is more of a problem. Gunshot wounds are very messy.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

I didn't make any comparison to car insurance. However, it is still a good analogy. I get my life insurance at a retail shop called .40S&W. It's much more valuable that say not buying it at all.

People stealing stuff from car ports isn't a reason to buy a gun, IMHO. Yes, people have the right to protect themselves. I don't think people have the right to blow away their neighbors teenager (the most likely culprit) because he snags something out of a garage or carport in which is typically a "crime of opportunity." The responsible thing to do there, IMHO, is keep your stuff locked.

It doesn't take much of a leap to go from stealing tools from a car port to stealing electronics from an occupied home. Happens all the time.

Actually, from my experience, having to clean up the blood is more of a problem. Gunshot wounds are very messy.

Which is why I hope like hell to never have to do that. But given the choice of cleaning up a gunshot would or burying my daughter... guess what I pick. Give my wife the choice of me possibly going to be charged for shooting a bad guy and have her or our daughter violated... guess what she'll take.



I will not let the liberals or the criminals (sometimes one-and-the-same) dictate how and where I can defend my family.



And no, I say breakins are rare because it is pretty common knowledge that most of my neighborhood residents are hunters and outdoorsy type people. There is also a cop next door. Guns are quite prevalent in the 'hood. Do you want to be a criminal tkaing a 50/50 chance on finding an unarmed home?

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



At one time, states did not require you to have insurance. I know you are old enough to remember that.



Did you have insurance back then? My parents did.



The fact still remains that an intruder will think twice before breaking into ANY house if there is a possibility the owner might be armed.



Put a sign in front of your house that says "Owner does not have a gun to protect himself!" Would you feel safe?



I have a small pistol right next to my computer desk. We have no children around my house and Kids don't come over to visit. I live in a bad neighborhood, at the moment, and I work late. When my parents are away from home, I hear all kinds of noises outside. It is nice to have "my little buddy" here...just in case. We have never been robbed, but neighbors have. I hope to god I never have to use it. I hope that nobody ever breaks into my house. I work hard for what I have and I plan to keep it. If someone does break into my house, there is only one fate the crook will get.



If someone feels like they need to rob this house, I will give them a small token of my appreciation. A few grams of lead.





Tom

 

[TomT]

LOL. Hey I'm on your side R Shek. Just pointing out that replacing a few windows or patching a couple of holes in the sheetrock is the least of your worries. Then there's all those statements you have to give to the police. That's why I hope I'm never in that situation but my Glock is ready just in case.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

That whole "will think twice" argument seems kinda lame. Lame because how are people supposed to know what homes do and don't have guns?



If that's all I need, then why not just put a sign up that says: "Gun owner WILL protect property, steal at your own risk!"



Of course, there are those that feel that if EVERY home was REQUIRED to have a gun that break-ins would almost be non-existant. But, to me, that's a faulty assumption, because it assumes a reality that isn't so. You have to HAVE that reality to then observe if your conjecture was correct...until then its just conjecture based on assumptions and related statistics.



TJR

 

[TomT]

Of course there's always the Low Tech Security System:

1. Go to a second-hand store and buy a pair of men's used work boots - a really big pair.

2. Put them outside your front door on top of a copy of Guns and Ammo magazine.

3. Put a dog dish beside it - a really big dog dish.

4. Leave a note on your front door that says "Bubba, Junior and me gone to get more beer and ammunition - back soon. Do not disturb the Pit Bulls - they are pissed - just been castrated.”

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

LOL. Hey I'm on your side R Shek. Just pointing out that replacing a few windows or patching a couple of holes in the sheetrock is the least of your worries. Then there's all those statements you have to give to the police. That's why I hope I'm never in that situation but my Glock is ready just in case.

Agreed

Of course, there are those that feel that if EVERY home was REQUIRED to have a gun that break-ins would almost be non-existant. But, to me, that's a faulty assumption, because it assumes a reality that isn't so. You have to HAVE that reality to then observe if your conjecture was correct...until then its just conjecture based on assumptions and related statistics.

I do not feel that a firearm should be a requirement. This is an invitation to disaster. This is not Sweeden where every male must go through military training before the age of 20. Many sheeple here in the US are too incompetant to properly use a firearm for self defence and have never been properly instructed on safe handling/storage and use of a firearm. Give them a .22LR and they are calling it a .357MAG. :wacko:

 

[WXMotorSports DecalsPartsAccs]

TomT that is way too funny!

 

[Mike Wilson]

TJR,

First paragraph of your earlier post sounds just like what I told you might happen!"



Trac,



Nope, the lay-off situation has nothing to do with "I Told You So"...it's all about a small company in a small high-tech industry (Video on Demand) that has matured. A "land grab" occurred and several small vendors like ours sold as much product as possible to the few giant customers there were and now, pending some set of "next generation" products, the marketplace is stagnant and all the vendors are fighting for crumbs. Our company has already laid off, and is ripe for acquisition. It's actually a pretty common story in my industry. There are plently of "gold rushes" and "land grabs" and those attribute to lay offs.



Can you say G.M., Ford, Visteon, Delphi, etc...

TJR, It sounds like I could give you and others like you, in your situation, the biggest

"I Told You So" in history!!! But I will not, as it sounds like you are, shortly, if not

right now, going to go through, or are already going through, the same things I and my

other UNION MEMBERS are going through, right now!!!

Replace the words "High Tech industry" with "Auto Industry", and you and I, again,

become "Brothers in Arms", or so it should be!!!

We so need to stick together on this site, as it seems that our collective Government,

is not going to do it for us!



P.S. R.E., Acquisition: G.M./Nissan. Let's wait to see what happens on that one, as I

have a vested interest in that particuliar merger!!!:huh::blink:

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Tracnblack, quite frankly, you really can't compare the ills of my industry and our company which sells unique, custom-built and designed video-on-demand equipment to less than 10 large cable companies and telecos within the auto industry (that's the whole market). Our industry has significantly less than a billion dollars in sales per year for all the vendors to fight for and that number continues to go DOWN each year. The issue in our industry, and you missed it so it seems, is that all the vendors have competed for what little business was out there, gone through the "land grab", and until something significant changes there will be no new business of any significance.



That's WAY different than the auto industry where the average American has become accustomed to buying a new vehicle every 3 to 5 years. Planned obsolence and consumers that repurchase make the auto industry way different than the VOD industry. Once a tech infrastructure is sold to one of our customers they don't repurchase unless there is some huge shift in the business sector, and that's just not happening. Do you plan on replacing your home network or router anytime soon? Nope, probably not, not unless something signicantly better comes along. And, in our industry, the "signficantly better" that has to come along has to be really compelling...meaning save money, or allow for the customer to sell more product and therefore make more money; and those types of changes to industry, which has just matured, aren't happening.



So unions won't help here, IMHO. The company did what it should. It saw a market, though that market was short lived, and it exploited that market as one of the market leaders. Now, the market is drying up (contracting).



The auto market hasn't really contracted. Yes, union members in the auto industry may be facing layoffs and downsizing, but that's because of an inability to compete in a very big marketplace that has repeat consumers and no real threat of the demand for the product dwindling because people just don't NEED new cars anymore. People will always WANT new cars every few years...most people anyway.



So, it's really apples and oranges.



Comparing my industry to the auto industry seems to serve no other purpose than to fuel your "I told you so", but that doesn't make them or the forces within them same. They aren't.



TJR

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Wow... this went from home protection to the ongoing Union/Non-Union debate.... I'll take my comments to the other thread.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

If I am in a thread, and Caymen or Trac jump in, somehow it turns to union talks. Go figure.

 

[Ryan Schaecher]

Yeah, the same with me usually....

 

[Tom Schindler]

If I am in a thread, and Caymen or Trac jump in, somehow it turns to union talks. Go figure.

Usually it is because you throw an anti-union comment in those posts.





Tom

 

[Chops]

I'm playing PeaceMaker today.



Now,

Threads are good,

Home protection is good,

Unions are good,

Life is good.



Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya

Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya

Oh Lord, kumbaya

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

Usually it is because you throw an anti-union comment in those posts

Caymen, that's just not true. I am NOT anti-union, I'm just not usually pro-union. There is a subtle difference. It's kind of like I support a woman's right to choose abortion, but I am not PRO-abortion in the sense that I think abortion is a good, positive thing.



And, my comments are usually introspective in nature and respectful. An anti-union comment would be something like:



- All UAW members are overpaid given the unskilled jobs their members perform.



or



- Unions have no place in today's America.



I have never said such things (to the best of my recollection), though others have. I support the freedoms that our country provides and within those freedoms the right for people to unionize and to collectively bargain.



I have simply in the past and continue to question if unions, today, for many large companies, are doing more good than harm; and questioning the overall effectiveness and usefulness of unions in many of today's companies and industries. Am I anti? No! Am I pro? No! I am on the fence, leaning mostly towards NOT seeing adequate value, overall, in many cases.



If that makes me anti-union in your mind, then I can't change that.



Another good example...I support the war on terror, but I question the actions in fighting that war and the value we are bringing to Iraq and elsewhere.



Just because one hasn't drank the kool-aid doesn't me they are anti.



I am not anti-Ford or anti-Sport trac, but I don have a lot of negative things to say about both, and question their value all the time.



Frankly, I think this country needs more people like me...people that have seen both sides (I have worked union and non-union, labor and professional knowledge worker, ditch digger and white collar), understand or at least can articulate objectively both sides, and can question both sides of debates, rather than snapping to a polar viewpoint like a zealot.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Frankly, I think this country needs more people like me...people that have seen both sides (I have worked union and non-union, labor and professional knowledge worker, ditch digger and white collar), understand or at least can articulate objectively both sides, and can question both sides of debates, rather than snapping to a polar viewpoint like a zealot.

Glad that is an opinion.



I too have worked both union and non-unin. As I have said before, I have dealt with 18 to 24 hour days. No time off for funerals, mandatory overtime no matter what, etc. I have had to "eat crow" to keep my job and frankly, I am sick and tired of it. I have asked my boss for a raise only to be told he can not afford it while he goes out the same day and buys a new sports car. I don't have anything against anyone being able to afford nice things. They work hard for their money, but so do I. I have heard comments like, "That is a nice looking vehicle, looks like we are paying you too much". Sure, he might have been joking, but not all jokes are funny or approporate.



Theresa was let go by Allstate insurance for hanging up on people. She deny's it and I HONESTLY beleve her. Anyone here that has met her would agree with me. With all the "evidence" they had to support their claim, the Unemployment service denied their appeal and even made the comment that something isn't right abut that situation. She did get the maximum raise every year over the prior 5 years she worked there. She was never written up and had some of the highest statistics in the department. She was fired because she was too good of an employee. She was paid too much.



I have been dating Theresa for 9 years and for 7 of those years I was on the road traveling. When I finally got my job I have now, a union job, I am not able to actually able to have a life. No more is my life dedicated to my employer that doesn't care about me. If I didn't like it, they didn't care. I like to be able to use words like "no", "sorry, I can't do it", and the best of all is "I want my steward present right now". Knowing "buddy deals" arent in the equation is a wonderful feeling.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen, anecdotal evidence will always be just that.



You were disgruntled with your last job and you felt used, so it seems, yet you could always and it appears you finally did "walk with your feet". Of the victims in this world there are those that are victimized without warning or ability to not be a victim (e.g. a victim of carjacking), and there are those that don't like the situation they are in or were in yet all the while have (or had) the power to remove themselves from that situation.



Which kind of victim were you?



Regarding Theresa's situation, most states have "employment at will", which means you can be dismissed without cause. Many employers are simply too ignorant when dismissing employees, IMHO. They feel the need to give a reason and employees often put them in that position by demanding a reason for their dismissal. The reality is that employers and employees SHOULD BOTH be comfortable with dismissals without reasons. That’s right, you heard me. Everyone should feel comfortable with a world in which whenever they get up in the morning they might go into work and be told “Good Bye!” In that world, the only thing keeping you employed is your displayed value to the company, and that said value is significantly greater than, on average, the salary and benefits you are paid. That’s the way it should be. I’m not afraid of that world.



Frankly, the reality with Allstate may very well have been that Theresa was making too much money (you eluded to that), and that they felt that they could hire a new employee at a lesser rate (or maybe two) and after some amount of training be better off. If that were the case, then they simply needed to state the reason as "financial reasons", or as I said, simply say "we no longer feel that it is mutually beneficial for us to retain your services", and leave it at that. Both are the truth. But we seem to NEED reasons for dismissals, reasons like "you are a bad employee", etc. Generally, the reality is that people are typically let go because for whatever set of reasons, they just aren’t as valuable to the company as the salary they demand. If they were, they would stay as retaining them makes business sense. And, yes, that employee value sometimes comes with intangibles, like personality conflicts and ability to get along with executives and management...that's the way it is.



I got laid off in 2002 after only 6 months on a new job. The company I joined hit a rough spot, financially, had to cut costs and there was a last-in, first-out situation. They told me I was let go due to downsizing required by the financial challenges. And, that made sense and was in-line with my observations. They told the employees that stayed that the people laid off that day were let go due to "poor performance"...which I know was a lie, or at the best a half-truth. We performed well, but our value wasn’t higher than our salaries (I wasn’t in a position to make them more money, I could only do the work I was assigned, and there wasn’t enough of that). So, why did they do lie and mislead? Because they were a stupid employer. Their reason to me and others let go that day, and to the people that they retained should have been "no comment", or something like "no longer within our best interest to retain".



So, yes, alas, companies feel the need to lie about the reasons for dismissal. But that DOESN'T change the fact that there are good, legitimate reasons to dismiss people (and they are almost always "business reasons"), and any form of protectionism that artificially forces companies to retain employees that are no longer in the companies best interest to retain, frankly, seem to me to have no real business benefit. Sure, they have an employee benefit...for those employees that would be otherwise let go; but if it hurts the business in the process, then it hurts the people that stay and the customers of the business in the long ru

 

[Tom Schindler]

But we seem to NEED reasons for dismissals, reasons like "you are a bad employee", etc.

That and a good reason can deny you the right to unemployment compensation.



Thank god I am union. I don't have to deal with the stuff.





Tom