quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

FR

read this
www.saf.org/LawReviews/KleckAndGertz1.htm

Like Lott study it Kleck and Gertz was discredit. But bogus reports don't matter.

Funny isn't it that last year Kleck and Gertz were used as a primary source by Newsweek.
I'll take their opinion over yours any day.
How about the other 17 studies that showed the same thing as Lott.
Why didn't any study bit the Brady Bunch show your view, and they wouldn't reveal sources or methodology and refused to submit to peer review.
Were you professor Erwin Corey in a previous life, or did you replace him when he died?

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It is a fair assumption that a person who has a weapon trained on you does not actually want to harm you, which may be counter-intuitive but does happen to be a fact. Most victims of armed robbery come out completely unharmed. I've never been mugged, but my understanding is that these things tend to happen pretty fast. An armed robber really doesn't want to stick around. He just wants to grab what he can get and run. Handing over your belongings immediately just reduces your involvement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And now you fall back on depend on the good will of the criminal after all he is just a well meaning guy whose down on hi luck.

The point is to reduce your involvement. The less you have to do with it, the better off you are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It is a fair assumption that a person who has a weapon trained on you does not actually want to harm you, which may be counter-intuitive but does happen to be a fact. Most victims of armed robbery come out completely unharmed. I've never been mugged, but my understanding is that these things tend to happen pretty fast. An armed robber really doesn't want to stick around. He just wants to grab what he can get and run. Handing over your belongings immediately just reduces your involvement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And now you fall back on depend on the good will of the criminal after all he is just a well meaning guy whose down on hi luck.

The point is to reduce your involvement. The less you have to do with it, the better off you are.

I don't suppose this has occurred to you but once you are in a mugging you are totally involved, and to base your actions on the assumed good intention of the criminal is tantamount to suicide, but to each their own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It is a fair assumption that a person who has a weapon trained on you does not actually want to harm you, which may be counter-intuitive but does happen to be a fact. Most victims of armed robbery come out completely unharmed. I've never been mugged, but my understanding is that these things tend to happen pretty fast. An armed robber really doesn't want to stick around. He just wants to grab what he can get and run. Handing over your belongings immediately just reduces your involvement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And now you fall back on depend on the good will of the criminal after all he is just a well meaning guy whose down on hi luck.

The point is to reduce your involvement. The less you have to do with it, the better off you are.

I don't suppose this has occurred to you but once you are in a mugging you are totally involved, and to base your actions on the assumed good intention of the criminal is tantamount to suicide, but to each their own.

Bama, butterscotch is actually arguing your point. As Lott's study showed, when a criminal doesn't know who is carrying he goes and does a property crime. It's all well and good for butterscotch to say he stands and walks patterned on the Marines to make himself less of a target. But, I carry concealed as a matter of integrity. Lott demonstrated that when concealed carry proliferated the criminals didn't know who was armed like a marine and so the criminals tended to go steal cars instead of mug people. My ex was a Chinese woman. She could never stand tall like a Marine. But she could put a gun in her purse. So, butterscothe's solution is fine for butterscotch but, it just makes my ex a more desirable target. As God made man and Sam Colt made men equal, carrying, as Lott showed, made everyone a less desirable target. So, philosophically, I carry not to protect myself, because I can stand tall like a Marine. I carry to perhaps prevent one rape of one woman who can't stand tall like a Marine.

BTW, as its Veterans Day weekend, all my Marine, Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard buddies are traditionally invited to my place to safely raise hell or remember comrades left behind.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: butternutsquash

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

It is a fair assumption that a person who has a weapon trained on you does not actually want to harm you, which may be counter-intuitive but does happen to be a fact. Most victims of armed robbery come out completely unharmed. I've never been mugged, but my understanding is that these things tend to happen pretty fast. An armed robber really doesn't want to stick around. He just wants to grab what he can get and run. Handing over your belongings immediately just reduces your involvement.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

And now you fall back on depend on the good will of the criminal after all he is just a well meaning guy whose down on hi luck.

The point is to reduce your involvement. The less you have to do with it, the better off you are.

I don't suppose this has occurred to you but once you are in a mugging you are totally involved, and to base your actions on the assumed good intention of the criminal is tantamount to suicide, but to each their own.

Bama, butterscotch is actually arguing your point. As Lott's study showed, when a criminal doesn't know who is carrying he goes and does a property crime. It's all well and good for butterscotch to say he stands and walks patterned on the Marines to make himself less of a target. But, I carry concealed as a matter of integrity. Lott demonstrated that when concealed carry proliferated the criminals didn't know who was armed like a marine and so the criminals tended to go steal cars instead of mug people. My ex was a Chinese woman. She could never stand tall like a Marine. But she could put a gun in her purse. So, butterscothe's solution is fine for butterscotch but, it just makes my ex a more desirable target. As God made man and Sam Colt made men equal, carrying, as Lott showed, made everyone a less desirable target. So, philosophically, I carry not to protect myself, because I can stand tall like a Marine. I carry to perhaps prevent one rape of one woman who can't stand tall like a Marine.

BTW, as its Veterans Day weekend, all my Marine, Army, Air Force, Navy, and Coast Guard buddies are traditionally invited to my place to safely raise hell or remember comrades left behind.

When asked what he was going to do to curb the number of cc permits (by the most liberal radio station in our area) he said "I kinda like the idea that the bad guys don't know where it's going to come from"  

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

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.

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.

Only in the opinion of morons


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.

That would require you to have at least a modicum of knowledge of what socialism actually is.

A large part of post modern thought is called deconstruction.

So you say[8|]


You see a lot of deconstruction in feminism.

My guess is that you see it in evrything you do not like from brocoli to kumquats.

Nosthro was using deconstruction when he was proposing that we have the 2nd amendment because slave owners wanted guns to keep slaves down and the northern states had to agree as a compromise.

Until you can debunk his position it would be you who is full of shit.

Butterscotch was using deconstruction when he claimed all publication about guns in economic journals were bad and all publications of the Law and economic review were good. You take apart old assumptions and substitute new assumptions.


If one discovers faults in an old assumption would not the wise person remove those faults?

Socialism uses deconstruction all of the time.

The monarchy had a lot to be deconstructed.

Socialist have never agreed.

But royalist,capitalist and cronies do?[8|]

It does not surprise me that socialist today are deconstructing older version of socialism they feel is rooted in modern thought.

Such as?

But, keep in mind, all that deconstruction is, as Tocqueville said, abstract disassociated from they actual institutions they are passing judgement apron.

I am pretty sure that tocqueville had never read marx.

Therefore socialism can dream up an abstract program, enforce it politically with no prior history of how it will affect life, and then move on as turmoil ensues with the clear conscience that they were only responsible for the abstract and they did a good thing.


Perhaps you might give us a concrete example of this turmoil that ensued after the tsar was gone and the civil war was over?


That the abstract disrupts and crushes people is disassociated from them.

Long on rhetoric but so far pretty short on facts.

Since people will always think in the abstract post modern institutions such as socialism will never be happy with status and will always try to impose new beliefs rather than learn from history.
What we have learned from history is that fuckheads claiming their imaginary friend said they got to be in charge is not a workable situation.
So far history has been pretty clear that soclalism does and is working around the world in many aspects.
Are there competing police departments in ca.?
Are there competing public utilities in ca.?
Are there competing fire departments in ca.?
The list goes on...so unless and until you are willing to forego all of the amenities of your socialist lifestyle you need to shut the fuck up.


That is why conservative are always asking when enough...taxes, regulation...is enough.

No that is what snivling punkassmotherfuckers say to avoid their social responsibilities for living in a free society.


It is also why conservative become frustrated with post modernism when it throws out thousands of years of human history to implement an abstract that is bound to fail.

Do you really believe that life in russia was better under the tsar.
Do you really believe that life in cuba was better under batista?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

Well glad to see you admit you are a joke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

If you pull a gun on somebody, that person is likely to pull out his own gun and shoot your ass. BY THE WAY, IS PUBMED TOO FUCKING POLITICALLY BIASED FOR YOU?

----------------------------------

You have just revived what I call the Kryptonian theory of crime.
The idea that the bad guy will when every confrontation would mean that criminals must be a superior being to the rest of us, you know like they came from Krypton.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

I think I made it clear that enlightenment philosophy went in a couple of directions.one direction ended up with the US constitution and one ended up with Marxism


Any validation for the circuitous method that took you to fantasy land?

and I've always been clear, especially with respect to this thread which I preferred and why.

Care to share the why?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

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.

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.

Only in the opinion of morons


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.

That would require you to have at least a modicum of knowledge of what socialism actually is.

A large part of post modern thought is called deconstruction.

So you say[8|]


You see a lot of deconstruction in feminism.

My guess is that you see it in evrything you do not like from brocoli to kumquats.

Nosthro was using deconstruction when he was proposing that we have the 2nd amendment because slave owners wanted guns to keep slaves down and the northern states had to agree as a compromise.

Until you can debunk his position it would be you who is full of shit.

Butterscotch was using deconstruction when he claimed all publication about guns in economic journals were bad and all publications of the Law and economic review were good. You take apart old assumptions and substitute new assumptions.


If one discovers faults in an old assumption would not the wise person remove those faults?

Socialism uses deconstruction all of the time.

The monarchy had a lot to be deconstructed.

Socialist have never agreed.

But royalist,capitalist and cronies do?[8|]

It does not surprise me that socialist today are deconstructing older version of socialism they feel is rooted in modern thought.

Such as?

But, keep in mind, all that deconstruction is, as Tocqueville said, abstract disassociated from they actual institutions they are passing judgement apron.

I am pretty sure that tocqueville had never read marx.

Therefore socialism can dream up an abstract program, enforce it politically with no prior history of how it will affect life, and then move on as turmoil ensues with the clear conscience that they were only responsible for the abstract and they did a good thing.


Perhaps you might give us a concrete example of this turmoil that ensued after the tsar was gone and the civil war was over?


That the abstract disrupts and crushes people is disassociated from them.

Long on rhetoric but so far pretty short on facts.

Since people will always think in the abstract post modern institutions such as socialism will never be happy with status and will always try to impose new beliefs rather than learn from history.
What we have learned from history is that fuckheads claiming their imaginary friend said they got to be in charge is not a workable situation.
So far history has been pretty clear that soclalism does and is working around the world in many aspects.
Are there competing police departments in ca.?
Are there competing public utilities in ca.?
Are there competing fire departments in ca.?
The list goes on...so unless and until you are willing to forego all of the amenities of your socialist lifestyle you need to shut the fuck up.


That is why conservative are always asking when enough...taxes, regulation...is enough.

No that is what snivling punkassmotherfuckers say to avoid their social responsibilities for living in a free society.


It is also why conservative become frustrated with post modernism when it throws out thousands of years of human history to implement an abstract that is bound to fail.

Do you really believe that life in russia was better under the tsar.
Do you really believe that life in cuba was better under batista?

Actually, by just about any metric you choose, including health care, life in Cuba was better under Batista then Castro.

While you've thrown out some snide comments, I've provided links. So it appears to me that the pussasmotherfucker comments was a projection. Actually it appears most of your comments are projections. How sad for your life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA



Do you really believe that life in russia was better under the tsar.

I'm not specifically sure about Russia, but, really, you believe life in the Soviet Union under Stalin was better than life in Russia under the tsar. You'd have to go back to the 40's, is my guess, to find any other, as Stalin called them, useful idiots to agree with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL:


Perhaps you might give us a concrete example of this turmoil that ensued after the tsar was gone and the civil war was over?

Well, the Soviet Union collapsed in the 80's if you'll recall. Oh, sorry, you're still in the 40's.

So let's look today at our state of health care under the ACA...oh and unemployment just ticked back up to 7.3 percent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

[


So far history has been pretty clear that soclalism does and is working around the world in many aspects.
Are there competing police departments in ca.?
Are there competing public utilities in ca.?
Are there competing fire departments in ca.?
The list goes on...so unless and until you are willing to forego all of the amenities of your socialist lifestyle you need

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

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.

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.

Only in the opinion of morons

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.

That would require you to have at least a modicum of knowledge of what socialism actually is.

A large part of post modern thought is called deconstruction.

So you say[8|]


You see a lot of deconstruction in feminism.

My guess is that you see it in evrything you do not like from brocoli to kumquats.

Nosthro was using deconstruction when he was proposing that we have the 2nd amendment because slave owners wanted guns to keep slaves down and the northern states had to agree as a compromise.

Until you can debunk his position it would be you who is full of shit.

Butterscotch was using deconstruction when he claimed all publication about guns in economic journals were bad and all publications of the Law and economic review were good. You take apart old assumptions and substitute new assumptions.


If one discovers faults in an old assumption would not the wise person remove those faults?

Socialism uses deconstruction all of the time.

The monarchy had a lot to be deconstructed.

Socialist have never agreed.

But royalist,capitalist and cronies do?[8|]

It does not surprise me that socialist today are deconstructing older version of socialism they feel is rooted in modern thought.

Such as?

But, keep in mind, all that deconstruction is, as Tocqueville said, abstract disassociated from they actual institutions they are passing judgement apron.

I am pretty sure that tocqueville had never read marx.

Therefore socialism can dream up an abstract program, enforce it politically with no prior history of how it will affect life, and then move on as turmoil ensues with the clear conscience that they were only responsible for the abstract and they did a good thing.


Perhaps you might give us a concrete example of this turmoil that ensued after the tsar was gone and the civil war was over?


That the abstract disrupts and crushes people is disassociated from them.

Long on rhetoric but so far pretty short on facts.

Since people will always think in the abstract post modern institutions such as socialism will never be happy with status and will always try to impose new beliefs rather than learn from history.
What we have learned from history is that fuckheads claiming their imaginary friend said they got to be in charge is not a workable situation.
So far history has been pretty clear that soclalism does and is working around the world in many aspects.
Are there competing police departments in ca.?
Are there competing public utilities in ca.?
Are there competing fire departments in ca.?
The list goes on...so unless and until you are willing to forego all of the amenities of your socialist lifestyle you need to shut the fuck up.


That is why conservative are always asking when enough...taxes, regulation...is enough.

No that is what snivling punkassmotherfuckers say to avoid their social responsibilities for living in a free society.

It is also why conservative become frustrated with post modernism when it throws out thousands of years of human history to implement an abstract that is bound to fail.

Do you really believe that life in russia was better under the tsar.
Do you really believe that life in cuba was better under batista?

Actually, by just about any metric you choose, including health care, life in Cuba was better under Batista then Castro.

While you've thrown out some snide comments, I've provided links. So it appears to me that the pussasmotherfucker comments was a projection. Actually it appears most of your comments are projections. How sad for your life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

So far history has been pretty clear that soclalism does and is working around the world in many aspects.
Are there competing police departments in ca.?
Are there competing public utilities in ca.?
Are there competing fire departments in ca.?
The list goes on...so unless and until you are willing to forego all of the amenities of your socialist lifestyle you need to shut the fuck up

I know this is going to be confusing to you because since you have nothing to argue, you prefer to pick nits. I know above I said in the City where I live. I meant in the city where I work.

Where I live, I live off the grid. I provide all of my own utilities, there is only a volunteer fire department hours away and the Sheriff is probably at least an hour out. I've given up what you call the amenities to get away from useless lice who think as you do.


So, pretty much, you're entire post was useless, wrong and only an expression of your self loathing. Sorry for you dude.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

I don't suppose this has occurred to you but once you are in a mugging you are totally involved, and to base your actions on the assumed good intention of the criminal is tantamount to suicide, but to each their own.