quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

(As an aside...all of those place now have very high gun violence and I assert its because only the outlaws have guns)

A claim that plenty of others have probably already proved to you is bogus, yet you keep repeating it. If that's how you're going to be, I'm going to vote to take away your guns just because I think you're an asshole. Grow enough balls to shoot straight with people instead of just repeating the same tired, discredited garbage. There is real quantitative science out there that suggests that gun laws actually do tend to have the intended effect. This has probably been pointed out to you repeatedly, and I think the reason you're ignoring it is that you're an immoral piece of shit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

Whatever. It's quite weird to equate 'postmodernism' with socialism', since many post modernists have actively set out to uproot the modernism they see in socialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Making an assumption that you believe the philosophy you are proposing,

quote:

Since I do not accept 100% of any moral philosophy, it can truthfully be said that I am immoral. Whether I'm a piece of shit or not is biologically obvious. But, if butterscotch wishes to metaphorically believe so, I'm sure he's not the first.

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Making an assumption that you believe the philosophy you are proposing,

You seem to be confused about what my philosophy actually is.

quote:

Since I do not accept 100% of any moral philosophy, it can truthfully be said that I am immoral. Whether I'm a piece of shit or not is biologically obvious. But, if butterscotch wishes to metaphorically believe so, I'm sure he's not the first.

I feel strongly about integrity. I don't have some elaborate philosophical argument to justify it. It's just a foolish ideal that I happen to feel attached to, and I'm probably fucked-up for investing any faith in it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Making an assumption that you believe the philosophy you are proposing,

You seem to be confused about what my philosophy actually is.

quote:

Since I do not accept 100% of any moral philosophy, it can truthfully be said that I am immoral. Whether I'm a piece of shit or not is biologically obvious. But, if butterscotch wishes to metaphorically believe so, I'm sure he's not the first.

I feel strongly about integrity. I don't have some elaborate philosophical argument to justify it. It's just a foolish ideal that I happen to feel attached to, and I'm probably fucked-up for investing any faith in it.

No, you don't seem to have an elaborate thought process. I agree.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Yes exactly. That is what post, or after, modernism does, it seeks to uproot modernism. You are correct. Socialism is a branch of post modern thought. It stems from the French branch of enlightenment philosophy. As I don't ascribe to post modern thought, you are also correct I would wish socialism uprooted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.

Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect.

However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect.

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222

This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives.

But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney.

We seem to have a misunderstanding the surveys I am referring to show that 18 say ccw works much better than gun control.
9 show no effect either way.
All 27 revealed sources and survived peer review.
Only the Brady bunch, who refused to reveal their sources or methodology and (clearly) refused peer review supported the idea that guns cause crime.
As for community policing.
Good idea.
My neighborhood had turned into a jungle.
A few months ago we started getting a more proactive approach to policing the area and it has almost become civilized.

You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dconcealed%2Bcarry%2Bviolent%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C34%26as_ylo%3D2009#search=%22concealed%20carry%20violent%22

There was a rash of studies back in the late 1990's, a lot of which was published in journals of economics and other weird places, that seemed to support RTC laws, but more recent analysis of that data demonstrates that RTC laws don't have any such effect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.

Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect.

However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect.

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222

This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives.

But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney.

We seem to have a misunderstanding the surveys I am referring to show that 18 say ccw works much better than gun control.
9 show no effect either way.
All 27 revealed sources and survived peer review.
Only the Brady bunch, who refused to reveal their sources or methodology and (clearly) refused peer review supported the idea that guns cause crime.
As for community policing.
Good idea.
My neighborhood had turned into a jungle.
A few months ago we started getting a more proactive approach to policing the area and it has almost become civilized.

You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dconcealed%2Bcarry%2Bviolent%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C34%26as_ylo%3D2009#search=%22concealed%20carry%20violent%22

There was a rash of studies back in the late 1990's, a lot of which was published in journals of economics and other weird places, that seemed to support RTC laws, but more recent analysis of that data demonstrates that RTC laws don't have any such effect.

A response to the document is here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328

Apparently, the Document authors Ayres and Donohue didn't sufficiently consider cocaine sales that were expanding in the country at the time of Lott's study. There was some argument Lott failed because he didnt handle robberies to the satisfaction of These authors.

The authors had a problem with Lott not using incarceration rates. Lott explains that he compared counties that issue permit to counties that done and incarceration rates a statewide. The authors used statistics to apply statewide incarceration rates to counties and Lott just compared crime rates prior to RTC laws and after RTC laws.

Of course I'm simplifying but the paper that refutes Lott was refuted in turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Yes exactly. That is what post, or after, modernism does, it seeks to uproot modernism. You are correct. Socialism is a branch of post modern thought. It stems from the French branch of enlightenment philosophy. As I don't ascribe to post modern thought, you are also correct I would wish socialism uprooted.

Most put socialism firmly into the modernist tradition, Hunter. This is because they 'define Modernism as a socially progressive trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve and reshape their environment with the aid of practical experimentation, scientific knowledge, or technology'. Marx would be the modernist social thinker par exemplar, given this. Conservatives tend to be sceptical about all that - just as are postmodernists. That's one reason why many think post modern thinking is actually right wing, not left wing. You have a very, very odd take on philosophy, I've got to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

Nosathro, tell me you don't believe me if you wish. But don't go study for two hours and come back and claim you are sufficiently studied up to be an expert.

Interesting that you rather then explain you use personal attacks. But I am not surprised by it.

Here you go. But you won't like it. http://www.peterberkowitz.com/sciencefiction.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.

Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect.

However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect.

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222

This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives.

But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney.

We seem to have a misunderstanding the surveys I am referring to show that 18 say ccw works much better than gun control.
9 show no effect either way.
All 27 revealed sources and survived peer review.
Only the Brady bunch, who refused to reveal their sources or methodology and (clearly) refused peer review supported the idea that guns cause crime.
As for community policing.
Good idea.
My neighborhood had turned into a jungle.
A few months ago we started getting a more proactive approach to policing the area and it has almost become civilized.

You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dconcealed%2Bcarry%2Bviolent%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C34%26as_ylo%3D2009#search=%22concealed%20carry%20violent%22

There was a rash of studies back in the late 1990's, a lot of which was published in journals of economics and other weird places, that seemed to support RTC laws, but more recent analysis of that data demonstrates that RTC laws don't have any such effect.

A response to the document is here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328

Apparently, the Document authors Ayres and Donohue didn't sufficiently consider cocaine sales that were expanding in the country at the time of Lott's study. There was some argument Lott failed because he didnt handle robberies to the satisfaction of These authors.

The authors had a problem with Lott not using incarceration rates. Lott explains that he compared counties that issue permit to counties that done and incarceration rates a statewide. The authors used statistics to apply statewide incarceration rates to counties and Lott just compared crime rates prior to RTC laws and after RTC laws.

Of course I'm simplifying but the paper that refutes Lott was refuted in turn.

So he wrote a paper in 1999 in to refute one that was written in 2009?

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.

Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect.

However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect.

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222

This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives.

But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney.

We seem to have a misunderstanding the surveys I am referring to show that 18 say ccw works much better than gun control.
9 show no effect either way.
All 27 revealed sources and survived peer review.
Only the Brady bunch, who refused to reveal their sources or methodology and (clearly) refused peer review supported the idea that guns cause crime.
As for community policing.
Good idea.
My neighborhood had turned into a jungle.
A few months ago we started getting a more proactive approach to policing the area and it has almost become civilized.

You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dconcealed%2Bcarry%2Bviolent%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C34%26as_ylo%3D2009#search=%22concealed%20carry%20violent%22

There was a rash of studies back in the late 1990's, a lot of which was published in journals of economics and other weird places, that seemed to support RTC laws, but more recent analysis of that data demonstrates that RTC laws don't have any such effect.

A response to the document is here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328

Apparently, the Document authors Ayres and Donohue didn't sufficiently consider cocaine sales that were expanding in the country at the time of Lott's study. There was some argument Lott failed because he didnt handle robberies to the satisfaction of These authors.

The authors had a problem with Lott not using incarceration rates. Lott explains that he compared counties that issue permit to counties that done and incarceration rates a statewide. The authors used statistics to apply statewide incarceration rates to counties and Lott just compared crime rates prior to RTC laws and after RTC laws.

Of course I'm simplifying but the paper that refutes Lott was refuted in turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

You know HunterCA I keep wondering why you use terms like

Postmodernism is a term that describes the postmodernist movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements. It is in general the era that follows Modernism. It frequently serves as an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. Which has nothing to do with politics.

I get the feeling you just trying to impress us, not working very well is it.

You know, Nosathro, I keep wondering why you so often plagiarise other people's work.

Postmodernism is a term that describes the postmodernist movement in the arts, its set of cultural tendencies and associated cultural movements. It is in general the era that follows Modernism.[1] It frequently serves as an ambiguous overarching term for skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. ~Wikipedia

I get the feeling that you're trying to impress us. It's working, but not the way you think.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.

Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect.

However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect.

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222

This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives.

But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney.

We seem to have a misunderstanding the surveys I am referring to show that 18 say ccw works much better than gun control.
9 show no effect either way.
All 27 revealed sources and survived peer review.
Only the Brady bunch, who refused to reveal their sources or methodology and (clearly) refused peer review supported the idea that guns cause crime.
As for community policing.
Good idea.
My neighborhood had turned into a jungle.
A few months ago we started getting a more proactive approach to policing the area and it has almost become civilized.

You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dconcealed%2Bcarry%2Bviolent%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C34%26as_ylo%3D2009#search=%22concealed%20carry%20violent%22

There was a rash of studies back in the late 1990's, a lot of which was published in journals of economics and other weird places, that seemed to support RTC laws, but more recent analysis of that data demonstrates that RTC laws don't have any such effect.

A response to the document is here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328

Apparently, the Document authors Ayres and Donohue didn't sufficiently consider cocaine sales that were expanding in the country at the time of Lott's study. There was some argument Lott failed because he didnt handle robberies to the satisfaction of These authors.

The authors had a problem with Lott not using incarceration rates. Lott explains that he compared counties that issue permit to counties that done and incarceration rates a statewide. The authors used statistics to apply statewide incarceration rates to counties and Lott just compared crime rates prior to RTC laws and after RTC laws.

Of course I'm simplifying but the paper that refutes Lott was refuted in turn.

So he wrote a paper in 1999 in to refute one that was written in 2009?

The paper you referenced is actually an update to work the author performed earlier. It added more data, criticized other work that criticized it, but it only restated earlier criticism of Lott. Lott's response was written after the original paper that criticized his work. Since this study doesn't state new criticism of Lott, apparently he's not felt it necessary to recriticise that which he'd already criticized. Keeping in mind I've reviewed both papers during my lunch hour and can't expound a vast discussion of them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
Are you okay with some lazy bastard hurting you or taking your (expensive) things because they can't be asked to work for it?
[/color]

hmmm.. for some reason the thought going thru my mind is parking a new vehicle that you love at a shopping center and some dumb-as-a-brick yahoo letting their shopping cart go and.. BANG!!!.. right into the side of your beautiful new vehicle's beautiful new paint job.. should I be able to (legally) shoot them??? [:-] I guess that's why I likely will never, ever buy a new (expensive) vehicle ever, ever, ever again.. I have come to the conclusion that (expensive) stuff isn't worth having if you feel you need a bodyguard for them.. [;)]

While annoying, it's still a little extreme just for some touch-up work. I posted a reply to the other thread, and I stand by what I said about that.

but that or similar "extreme" actions do happen.. like the guy that shot a seafood salesman that was getting in his vehicle after knocking on the guys door.. shot dead for no reason.. he was just trying to earn a living and for that he's dead.. it seems that those gun-toting nutbars are the ones that make the news and imo most actually are nutbars with mental problems or on prescribed drugs (like Zimmy was) to "fix" certain disorders.. these people usually had guns they bought, filled out yer precious Form 4473 and were approved to buy.. I guess ya could call that "licensed to kill", huh??? [8|]

as far as nukes go.. why do you think the US (who has used a nuke in war before) doesn't want Iran or various other countries to have them? cuz a country with a nuke is actually not a defense against another country with a nuke.. so imo you are wrong about the "only solution to a man with a gun is another man with a gun standing against him".. the best answer (imo) is no one having guns..
I guess my beliefs are why I would never make a "good American".. [:D] [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
That is not what the vast majority of surveys show.

Show me a fucking doi. I have been looking at controlled studies on this for a decade, and most credible science demonstrates that gun control does have the intended effect.

However, when you spend money on enforcing a law, there is always an opportunity cost. There is always something that you could have spent the same money on that would have had more of the intended effect.

http://cad.sagepub.com/content/58/2/222

This study doesn't advocate gun control, but it advocates community-based law-enforcement initiatives. We could invest every penny of what we spend on gun control on such initiatives and probably save lives.

But the claim that "gun control makes violent crime worse" is a popular myth that is also a colossal load of baloney.

We seem to have a misunderstanding the surveys I am referring to show that 18 say ccw works much better than gun control.
9 show no effect either way.
All 27 revealed sources and survived peer review.
Only the Brady bunch, who refused to reveal their sources or methodology and (clearly) refused peer review supported the idea that guns cause crime.
As for community policing.
Good idea.
My neighborhood had turned into a jungle.
A few months ago we started getting a more proactive approach to policing the area and it has almost become civilized.

You've had the evidence debunking this available to you for years.

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fscholar.google.com%2Fscholar%3Fstart%3D10%26q%3Dconcealed%2Bcarry%2Bviolent%26hl%3Den%26as_sdt%3D0%2C34%26as_ylo%3D2009#search=%22concealed%20carry%20violent%22

There was a rash of studies back in the late 1990's, a lot of which was published in journals of economics and other weird places, that seemed to support RTC laws, but more recent analysis of that data demonstrates that RTC laws don't have any such effect.

A response to the document is here. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=248328

Apparently, the Document authors Ayres and Donohue didn't sufficiently consider cocaine sales that were expanding in the country at the time of Lott's study. There was some argument Lott failed because he didnt handle robberies to the satisfaction of These authors.

The authors had a problem with Lott not using incarceration rates. Lott explains that he compared counties that issue permit to counties that done and incarceration rates a statewide. The authors used statistics to apply statewide incarceration rates to counties and Lott just compared crime rates prior to RTC laws and after RTC laws.

Of course I'm simplifying but the paper that refutes Lott was refuted in turn.

So he wrote a paper in 1999 in to refute one that was written in 2009?

The paper you referenced is actually an update to work the author performed earlier. It added more data, criticized other work that criticized it, but it only restated earlier criticism of Lott. Lott's response was written after the original paper that criticized his work. Since this study doesn't state new criticism of Lott, apparently he's not felt it necessary to recriticise that which he'd already criticized. Keeping in mind I've reviewed both papers during my lunch hour and can't expound a vast discussion of them.

Seriously, take a closer look at figures 4a and 4b.

1991 is the year that the Cold War is considered to have ended, and a lot of other things were going on during that same time period. Lott's argument seems to be based entirely on correlation, and you could attribute his data to just about anything that was going on at that time. "Shaky" is charitable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA
A large part of post modern thought is called deconstruction.