Quote:
Originally Posted by JayTeeMe
Trivially true indeed but the discussion in this thread was giving us "they don't consider the consequences/just don't think they'll be caught". I mean, my dog is obviously weighing the consequences and chances he'll be caught when considering whether or not to help himself to the roast on the kitchen table.
I already explained this. It's trivially true if you're prepared to accept as "a cost/benefit analysis" something like:
Benefit: I would like to do that.
Cost: In order to do that, I would have to do it.
Conclusion: I should do that.
If we get more exclusive about what will pass muster as an actual analysis, then I think it's pretty questionable whether a lot of criminals actually employ one.
Quote:
The chances of armed resistance around here are ~0. The reason we don't see many bank robberies here is because the FBI joins the investigation on all bank robberies, making capture a lot more likely. When you rob the gas station, the file ends up in the bottom of Mahan and Polk's pile.
Where's 'around here'? You're telling me in a country with like 100 million guns, there are banks that don't have at least one armed guard? I mean, I guess I can't argue, because I don't know, but that's very surprising to me.