quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have no idea if his numbers are correct, but at least I UNDERSTOOD what he WROTE, Mr enlightened one!

I don't know if his figures are 100% accurate, however I do know that they are pretty close.
And I agree, it does reflect a massive increase in the number of guns on the street at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically. This, as I have said before, may not "prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove that more guns do not = more crime.

The problem here, is the elimination of all other possible variables. An there are quite a number of possible variables that are going into the 'low crime rate'. 'Firearms on the streets' could be seen as a multiplier effect rather than a number. Meaning 'x2' of 'rate' is going to be much different if the value of 'rate' is '5' compared to '340'. That is why we eliminate possible contributing concepts to determine if its a number rather than a multiplier.

There are many possible circumstances for the low crime rates. I'll give a few here, but please, do not take this as the whole list or the 'best ideas of shooting down your argument':

A ) Many government programs at the local, state, and federal levels have served their intended purpose: a safety blanket for the poor. That such programs help with paying with rent, food, medicine, even basic living hurdles, are creating less need for people to rob and thieve.

B ) The economy has improved since 2007 when it was spiraling downward to a second 'Great Depression'. People are less nervous about their investments (be they stocks/bonds or their own houses). Aquiring gainful and reasonable employment has kept many from 'making ends meet' by less legal and ethical methods.

C ) As each new 'violent video game' is released, observers have noticed a downward spike in the crime rate. That individuals are fueling their negative emotions towards a virtual world, rather than the physical one. There have been many studies showing this unusual effect.

D ) Thanks to taxpayer money, law enforcement can do its job. That training and support systems in place can make a difference on whether those who would prey on the populous do so or not.

E ) That America has learned from previous events and history of what not to do. That schools are much more observant of bullies towards students. That thanks to science, we are better able to determine not only the 'who' and 'why' of a crime, but the 'how'. That its one thing to track an organized cell, its much hard for the lone wolf; either way, defense systems (passive and active) have been improved upon.

F ) Americans are a better people than conservative, schizophrenic, paranoid, delusional gun nuts would have us all believe!

If your going to make the argument, BamaD, that firearms have a direct and contributing effect, by themselves of the crime rate. Its fair to ask for the evidence that supports the viewpoint. Not from a source that is already compromised of its views (i.e. FOX News and other conservative media) or political viewpoint (i.e. NRA and the like). Nor a 'fly by night' operation. That will be very hard to come by. Its possible, just like 'Creationism' could be true. Like Creationism, the evidence to support the view point is at odds to the mountain ranges of other sources contributing to the low crime rate.

Your entire volume is based on not understanding my post.
I said that the drop does not conclusively prove that more guns = less crime. It does however disprove the idea that more guns = more crime.

No, you are not understanding what I'm explaining. That the crime has gone down to many other contributing factors that have been studied and verified independently through multiple sources. Without those factors in place or 'in play', would crime increase due to the number of firearms? Oh hell yeah! Desperate people, with easy access to firearms, and no distraction/safety net to handle their needs/wants....increases crime and violence.

What I am explaining is that the concept of firearms has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be a positive contributing factor in lessening crime or violence. That you or others (more likely others) would have to remove many obvious reasons for the reduction in crime and violence from other sources, to show if private firearm ownership reduces crime and violence. That is going to be tough for two reasons:

1 ) The source that publishes such a document would be HEAVILY scrutinized. They would have to have some really well qualified and credible researchers whom can show they are not doing this for a political outcome nor financial benefit.

2 ) The funding for such a ground breaking study would need to be entirely independent of individuals, groups, and other organizations that would gain or profit by its release. Likewise, if the funding came through shadowy sources that are hard to track down would heavily undermine any credibility.

I'm not saying that 'firearms = bad', or 'firearms = good'. I'm asking if the evidence that shows firearms by themselves, are a positive contributing factor in the overall reduction of crime and violence. That going through the trouble to construct such a study, collect the data objectively and be able to publish the evidence in full with conclusion, would be VERY hard on those secretly trying to push an agenda if the end result was not to their liking.

I can accept, based on objective evidence and research that firearms are indeed a contributing factor in the reduction of crime and violence. Obviously, it would be curious to know how the study was formed, tested, and analysed. What things were tested and was was not. And the 'why's and 'why nots' with it. I can...ALSO....accept, based on objective evidence and research that firearms are not a contributing factor in the reduction of crime and violence. This means, that we are testing a belief system to see if it holds up to scientific scrutiny.

The question I have here, BamaD, is: Can you handle either outcome (or possibility a third, undefined outcome) like an responsible adult? Even if that outcome is not advantageous to you politically and/or financially?

You are not understanding.
I did not claim there were no other factors.
In fact I believe that there are.
However if guns caused crime then four to five times as many guns on the streets (as opposed to in homes) would out weigh or at least negate those factors. Ergo while the increase in guns legally carried is not the sole reason for the drop in crime, it clearly has not created the increase that anti gun people would have us believe that this increase in guns being carried would create.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Because women must actively restrict themselves in order to be safer from harm, you would take away their most effective means of protecting themselves, a gun, because they live in fear?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Or, I should go ahead and stop concerning myself with time, place, and surroundings so that I am not acting fearful? Just go ahead and go to Aberdeen's bar district by myself and get loaded without a care at 2am?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Why do you not understand that giving women the means to protect themselves WOULD combat their fears?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
A Connecticut State Police Trooper pulled over an old 1955 Cadillac for a faulty taillight. When the officer approached the car, he noticed a little old lady behind the wheel.

The police officer asked the old lady for her license, registration, and insurance cards; however, when she opened up her pockbook to retrieve those cards, to his surprise he noticed a concealed weapon carry permit.

The trooper took all the documents, looked them over and said. "Mrs. Smith, I see you have a concealed weapon permit. Do you have a gun with you?"

Very sweetly and proudly the little old lady replied, " oh, yes officer, I have a Smith & Wesson 38 caliber pistol right here in my bag. Do you wish to see it?" And before he could reply, the old lady opened her handbag under his nose and sure enough, he immediately recognized the distinctive snub barrel of a Smith & Wesson 38.

Kind of taken aback, as a matter of formality he cautiously asked her, "do you have any other guns with you?"

To which the old lady boasted, " I also have a 357 magnum in my glove compartment", opening its cover and revealing its huge barrel.

The officer, flabbergasted, found himself then asking before any further thought on his part, but not really expecting anything more: "anything else?"

To which she replied, "why, yes, I also have a 44 magnum in my console, and a Mossberg 500 12 gauge shootgun in the trunk."

As you can imagine, at this point the police officer was at a total loss as to why an old lady would have in her possession such an arsenal of weapons, so thinking she was a bit crazy, he bent over, looked her in the eyes, and asked, "Lady, may I ask you what you are afraid of?"

To which the old lady locked eyes with the officer and calmly answered, "Not a damn thing!"

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
We are going to go harvest clams on Saturday. Since I am a chick, I will be using a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Because women must actively restrict themselves in order to be safer from harm, you would take away their most effective means of protecting themselves, a gun, because they live in fear?

I never stated a woman has to actively restrict themselves; you did. I did ask the human question of what sort of effects this has on their minds and bodies, living in this constant state of worry. That the firearms 'magically' protects them like a the cross on the doors during the Salem Witch Trials for single women.

And I pointed out that society is not doing enough to protect those citizens in the most danger. As women are not the only ones at risk, but children. Would you arm children the same as women?

A woman's most effective tool in their arsenal is their mind. An you apparently have not been taught that in any self defense classes. Be it of 'hand to hand combat' or with weapons (including firearms)!

People like you 'program' into others minds that without a firearm, they cant do anything. You prey upon these people to advance your political agenda. Frankly that's not practicing a liberty...that's....preying on the fearful! More disgusting is that you enjoy it!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Or, I should go ahead and stop concerning myself with time, place, and surroundings so that I am not acting fearful? Just go ahead and go to Aberdeen's bar district by myself and get loaded without a care at 2am?

This is the rant of an immature adult. Grow up!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Why do you not understand that giving women the means to protect themselves WOULD combat their fears?

So their acquisition of a firearm is due to living in fear, NOT, practicing a liberty? An judging by you, the longer they stay fearful the more it helps your political agenda. What are you doing to reduce that fear? One could have a firearm for self defense, BUT, they don't live in fear of something bad happening. In that regard, the firearm becomes a tool, like any other tool.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
A Connecticut State Police

. . .snip. . . .

To which the old lady locked eyes with the officer and calmly answered, "Not a damn thing!"

Sounds either like a urban legend or a tale that never happened. A police officer being surprised that someone has legal firearms in their car? Seems a bit hard to believe. The police officers I know would not be phased by such a traffic stop. Would handle things according to their normal processes.

Lets just say for the sake of the argument this was factual. That this lady and this trooper actually met during a traffic stop. The lady is not living in fear. Not because of some danger, but because there is no danger for her to be in. That's MUCH different from a woman scared her crazy ex-boyfriend arsenal (that would make BamaD blush to have) could be used against her. The lady in your example....*IS*....practicing a liberty.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
We are going to go harvest clams on Saturday. Since I am a chick, I will be using a gun.

How well armed are you expecting these clams to be?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have no idea if his numbers are correct, but at least I UNDERSTOOD what he WROTE, Mr enlightened one!

I don't know if his figures are 100% accurate, however I do know that they are pretty close.
And I agree, it does reflect a massive increase in the number of guns on the street at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically. This, as I have said before, may not "prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove that more guns do not = more crime.

The problem here, is the elimination of all other possible variables. An there are quite a number of possible variables that are going into the 'low crime rate'. 'Firearms on the streets' could be seen as a multiplier effect rather than a number. Meaning 'x2' of 'rate' is going to be much different if the value of 'rate' is '5' compared to '340'. That is why we eliminate possible contributing concepts to determine if its a number rather than a multiplier.

There are many possible circumstances for the low crime rates. I'll give a few here, but please, do not take this as the whole list or the 'best ideas of shooting down your argument':

A ) Many government programs at the local, state, and federal levels have served their intended purpose: a safety blanket for the poor. That such programs help with paying with rent, food, medicine, even basic living hurdles, are creating less need for people to rob and thieve.

B ) The economy has improved since 2007 when it was spiraling downward to a second 'Great Depression'. People are less nervous about their investments (be they stocks/bonds or their own houses). Aquiring gainful and reasonable employment has kept many from 'making ends meet' by less legal and ethical methods.

C ) As each new 'violent video game' is released, observers have noticed a downward spike in the crime rate. That individuals are fueling their negative emotions towards a virtual world, rather than the physical one. There have been many studies showing this unusual effect.

D ) Thanks to taxpayer money, law enforcement can do its job. That training and support systems in place can make a difference on whether those who would prey on the populous do so or not.

E ) That America has learned from previous events and history of what not to do. That schools are much more observant of bullies towards students. That thanks to science, we are better able to determine not only the 'who' and 'why' of a crime, but the 'how'. That its one thing to track an organized cell, its much hard for the lone wolf; either way, defense systems (passive and active) have been improved upon.

F ) Americans are a better people than conservative, schizophrenic, paranoid, delusional gun nuts would have us all believe!

If your going to make the argument, BamaD, that firearms have a direct and contributing effect, by themselves of the crime rate. Its fair to ask for the evidence that supports the viewpoint. Not from a source that is already compromised of its views (i.e. FOX News and other conservative media) or political viewpoint (i.e. NRA and the like). Nor a 'fly by night' operation. That will be very hard to come by. Its possible, just like 'Creationism' could be true. Like Creationism, the evidence to support the view point is at odds to the mountain ranges of other sources contributing to the low crime rate.

Your entire volume is based on not understanding my post.
I said that the drop does not conclusively prove that more guns = less crime. It does however disprove the idea that more guns = more crime.

No, you are not understanding what I'm explaining. That the crime has gone down to many other contributing factors that have been studied and verified independently through multiple sources. Without those factors in place or 'in play', would crime increase due to the number of firearms? Oh hell yeah! Desperate people, with easy access to firearms, and no distraction/safety net to handle their needs/wants....increases crime and violence.

What I am explaining is that the concept of firearms has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be a positive contributing factor in lessening crime or violence. That you or others (more likely others) would have to remove many obvious reasons for the reduction in crime and violence from other sources, to show if private firearm ownership reduces crime and violence. That is going to be tough for two reasons:

1 ) The source that publishes such a document would be HEAVILY scrutinized. They would have to have some really well qualified and credible researchers whom can show they are not doing this for a political outcome nor financial benefit.

2 ) The funding for such a ground breaking study would need to be entirely independent of individuals, groups, and other organizations that would gain or profit by its release. Likewise, if the funding came through shadowy sources that are hard to track down would heavily undermine any credibility.

I'm not saying that 'firearms = bad', or 'firearms = good'. I'm asking if the evidence that shows firearms by themselves, are a positive contributing factor in the overall reduction of crime and violence. That going through the trouble to construct such a study, collect the data objectively and be able to publish the evidence in full with conclusion, would be VERY hard on those secretly trying to push an agenda if the end result was not to their liking.

I can accept, based on objective evidence and research that firearms are indeed a contributing factor in the reduction of crime and violence. Obviously, it would be curious to know how the study was formed, tested, and analysed. What things were tested and was was not. And the 'why's and 'why nots' with it. I can...ALSO....accept, based on objective evidence and research that firearms are not a contributing factor in the reduction of crime and violence. This means, that we are testing a belief system to see if it holds up to scientific scrutiny.

The question I have here, BamaD, is: Can you handle either outcome (or possibility a third, undefined outcome) like an responsible adult? Even if that outcome is not advantageous to you politically and/or financially?

You are not understanding.
I did not claim there were no other factors.
In fact I believe that there are.
However if guns caused crime then four to five times as many guns on the streets (as opposed to in homes) would out weigh or at least negate those factors. Ergo while the increase in guns legally carried is not the sole reason for the drop in crime, it clearly has not created the increase that anti gun people would have us believe that this increase in guns being carried would create.

Your using a belief system that would not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Since the other factors are in play and showing they are indeed contributing in decent quantities of reducing the crime rate and violence. You have not shown that firearms, by themselves, have a noticeable reduction to crime and violence. Further you would have to eliminate those firearms used in a law enforcement capacity (i.e. police officers). The final amount would be 'private citizens' with firearms, using them to deter crime and reduce violence. An this really hasn't been shown in a scientific manner to positively reduce crime and violence. Hence, its a belief system.

If firearms in private citizens hands actually reduced the crime and violence rates, wouldn't that make the United States the lowest crime/violence rate of all the industrial nations? While the previous question is curious, that's not what is being talked about here.

The problem is devising a study in actual observation rather than statistical analysis, to arrive at the evidence to be concluded on, that indeed, firearms, in the private citizen hand, do reduce crime and violence rates. It sounds simple enough until one tries to handle the logistics to create the circumstances in which to test the hypothesis. That the idea is to remove all other reasonable factors to the reduction of crim and violence, and test what effect if any (positive or negative) firearms, in private citizens hands have at reducing crime and violence. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to construction such a study?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

But I wasnt talking about Cities, was I ? The conversation was about murder rates per country.

Enlightened still doesnt mean the opposite of barbaric, you know that and I know that.

A scenario, thats just what you are putting up as some sort of reply. Let me ask you this, since there are no legal guns on the streets of the UK, why are there more rapes in America. ?

Yes, and I stated that if you had more cities the size of London, your murder rate would go up. You called me an idiot or something like that.

There are more rapes in America because when 1400 girls are raped in the UK you do not prosecute anyone or report it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics#Rape_statistics_by_country

Hmm. . . the chart says that you have 28.8 (England/Wales) versus 27.3 (USA) as of the year 2010, so are you completely sure about that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
These people are not practicing a liberty, but living in fear.
And people who wear seat belts are living in fear of an accident?

No, they are living in fear of being pulled over and fined for not wearing a seat belt.

I wore mine before it was required. By Joether's logic they should not wear them since they do it out of fear.

'By my logic' eh? Here is logic...If guns don't kill people, but people kill people.....why do we allow people to have guns?

quote:

While your thinking on that answer....
Nothing in the law books states one is forced to wear a seat belt. There are fines for being caught without one. People wear seat belts because its been proven that they help more likely than not in an accident. And what is an accident? An event that happens without doing something on purpose.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
I have no idea if his numbers are correct, but at least I UNDERSTOOD what he WROTE, Mr enlightened one!

I don't know if his figures are 100% accurate, however I do know that they are pretty close.
And I agree, it does reflect a massive increase in the number of guns on the street at the same time that crime has dropped dramatically. This, as I have said before, may not "prove that more guns = less crime, but it does prove that more guns do not = more crime.

The problem here, is the elimination of all other possible variables. An there are quite a number of possible variables that are going into the 'low crime rate'. 'Firearms on the streets' could be seen as a multiplier effect rather than a number. Meaning 'x2' of 'rate' is going to be much different if the value of 'rate' is '5' compared to '340'. That is why we eliminate possible contributing concepts to determine if its a number rather than a multiplier.

There are many possible circumstances for the low crime rates. I'll give a few here, but please, do not take this as the whole list or the 'best ideas of shooting down your argument':

A ) Many government programs at the local, state, and federal levels have served their intended purpose: a safety blanket for the poor. That such programs help with paying with rent, food, medicine, even basic living hurdles, are creating less need for people to rob and thieve.

B ) The economy has improved since 2007 when it was spiraling downward to a second 'Great Depression'. People are less nervous about their investments (be they stocks/bonds or their own houses). Aquiring gainful and reasonable employment has kept many from 'making ends meet' by less legal and ethical methods.

C ) As each new 'violent video game' is released, observers have noticed a downward spike in the crime rate. That individuals are fueling their negative emotions towards a virtual world, rather than the physical one. There have been many studies showing this unusual effect.

D ) Thanks to taxpayer money, law enforcement can do its job. That training and support systems in place can make a difference on whether those who would prey on the populous do so or not.

E ) That America has learned from previous events and history of what not to do. That schools are much more observant of bullies towards students. That thanks to science, we are better able to determine not only the 'who' and 'why' of a crime, but the 'how'. That its one thing to track an organized cell, its much hard for the lone wolf; either way, defense systems (passive and active) have been improved upon.

F ) Americans are a better people than conservative, schizophrenic, paranoid, delusional gun nuts would have us all believe!

If your going to make the argument, BamaD, that firearms have a direct and contributing effect, by themselves of the crime rate. Its fair to ask for the evidence that supports the viewpoint. Not from a source that is already compromised of its views (i.e. FOX News and other conservative media) or political viewpoint (i.e. NRA and the like). Nor a 'fly by night' operation. That will be very hard to come by. Its possible, just like 'Creationism' could be true. Like Creationism, the evidence to support the view point is at odds to the mountain ranges of other sources contributing to the low crime rate.

Your entire volume is based on not understanding my post.
I said that the drop does not conclusively prove that more guns = less crime. It does however disprove the idea that more guns = more crime.

No, you are not understanding what I'm explaining. That the crime has gone down to many other contributing factors that have been studied and verified independently through multiple sources. Without those factors in place or 'in play', would crime increase due to the number of firearms? Oh hell yeah! Desperate people, with easy access to firearms, and no distraction/safety net to handle their needs/wants....increases crime and violence.

What I am explaining is that the concept of firearms has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be a positive contributing factor in lessening crime or violence. That you or others (more likely others) would have to remove many obvious reasons for the reduction in crime and violence from other sources, to show if private firearm ownership reduces crime and violence. That is going to be tough for two reasons:

1 ) The source that publishes such a document would be HEAVILY scrutinized. They would have to have some really well qualified and credible researchers whom can show they are not doing this for a political outcome nor financial benefit.

2 ) The funding for such a ground breaking study would need to be entirely independent of individuals, groups, and other organizations that would gain or profit by its release. Likewise, if the funding came through shadowy sources that are hard to track down would heavily undermine any credibility.

I'm not saying that 'firearms = bad', or 'firearms = good'. I'm asking if the evidence that shows firearms by themselves, are a positive contributing factor in the overall reduction of crime and violence. That going through the trouble to construct such a study, collect the data objectively and be able to publish the evidence in full with conclusion, would be VERY hard on those secretly trying to push an agenda if the end result was not to their liking.

I can accept, based on objective evidence and research that firearms are indeed a contributing factor in the reduction of crime and violence. Obviously, it would be curious to know how the study was formed, tested, and analysed. What things were tested and was was not. And the 'why's and 'why nots' with it. I can...ALSO....accept, based on objective evidence and research that firearms are not a contributing factor in the reduction of crime and violence. This means, that we are testing a belief system to see if it holds up to scientific scrutiny.

The question I have here, BamaD, is: Can you handle either outcome (or possibility a third, undefined outcome) like an responsible adult? Even if that outcome is not advantageous to you politically and/or financially?

You are not understanding.
I did not claim there were no other factors.
In fact I believe that there are.
However if guns caused crime then four to five times as many guns on the streets (as opposed to in homes) would out weigh or at least negate those factors. Ergo while the increase in guns legally carried is not the sole reason for the drop in crime, it clearly has not created the increase that anti gun people would have us believe that this increase in guns being carried would create.

Your using a belief system that would not hold up to scientific scrutiny. Since the other factors are in play and showing they are indeed contributing in decent quantities of reducing the crime rate and violence. You have not shown that firearms, by themselves, have a noticeable reduction to crime and violence. Further you would have to eliminate those firearms used in a law enforcement capacity (i.e. police officers). The final amount would be 'private citizens' with firearms, using them to deter crime and reduce violence. An this really hasn't been shown in a scientific manner to positively reduce crime and violence. Hence, its a belief system.

If firearms in private citizens hands actually reduced the crime and violence rates, wouldn't that make the United States the lowest crime/violence rate of all the industrial nations? While the previous question is curious, that's not what is being talked about here.

The problem is devising a study in actual observation rather than statistical analysis, to arrive at the evidence to be concluded on, that indeed, firearms, in the private citizen hand, do reduce crime and violence rates. It sounds simple enough until one tries to handle the logistics to create the circumstances in which to test the hypothesis. That the idea is to remove all other reasonable factors to the reduction of crim and violence, and test what effect if any (positive or negative) firearms, in private citizens hands have at reducing crime and violence. Do you have any idea how hard it would be to construction such a study?

I have not only not proven that firearms are the primary reason for the drop, I have claimed it. I have agreed that there are other factors. Thus you are wasting your time trying to disprove something that wasn't said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
So you do NOT think that women have to restrict themselves? Because am pretty sure that ALL women are having to live with that worry and consideration in regards to activities and surroundings. Some more than others depending on where they are. I think that it is interesting that you do not think that women have to make those calculations. As for the effect on their minds? That would be difficult to know since it has been happening since the beginning of time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Arming children? How old is the child and where are they at? I am unsure of why you think arming children is unheard of. It is really a situational thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Society should protect women, huh, instead of themselves. Have you NOT heard of the woman's movement? It was this crazy thing that essentially said that women are people, with the same rights as men (including self-defense and ability to protect themselves) instead of being considered on the level of children. Why should I or any other woman be forced to "rely on the kindness of strangers"?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
I am not Professor X. My mind may be a powerful tool but in a contest of brute strength that gets me nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
News to me that I have been programing into people that they cannot do anything without a gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Or, I should go ahead and stop concerning myself with time, place, and surroundings so that I am not acting fearful? Just go ahead and go to Aberdeen's bar district by myself and get loaded without a care at 2am?

This is the rant of an immature adult. Grow up!

No it is not. It is exactly the type of thing you think one should do to show their liberty. Because restricting myself from that just shows I am "living in fear."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Why do you not understand that giving women the means to protect themselves WOULD combat their fears?

So their acquisition of a firearm is due to living in fear, NOT, practicing a liberty? An judging by you, the longer they stay fearful the more it helps your political agenda. What are you doing to reduce that fear? One could have a firearm for self defense, BUT, they don't live in fear of something bad happening. In that regard, the firearm becomes a tool, like any other tool.

Acquisition and learning how to use and practicing using a firearm is a liberty guaranteed under the 2nd amendment. There are a lot of options that can be taken to make yourself safer. A firearm is one of them. It is also the one that addresses disparity of force between the sexes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Urban legend? I do not know about that. I do know that it is a VERY old joke.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aylee
Although I do wonder how you have come to the conclusion that a fictional little old lady has nothing to be concerned about leading to her packing several firearms? But you have decreed that us wimmins are just living in fear for no reason, after all. I should not be surprised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
These people are not practicing a liberty, but living in fear.
And people who wear seat belts are living in fear of an accident?

No, they are living in fear of being pulled over and fined for not wearing a seat belt.

I wore mine before it was required. By Joether's logic they should not wear them since they do it out of fear.

'By my logic' eh? Here is logic...If guns don't kill people, but people kill people.....why do we allow people to have guns?

<cough, cough> Constitutional Right <cough, cough>

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
While your thinking on that answer....
Nothing in the law books states one is forced to wear a seat belt. There are fines for being caught without one. People wear seat belts because its been proven that they help more likely than not in an accident. And what is an accident? An event that happens without doing something on purpose.

Threatening someone with a fine is financial coercion, Joether. I'm opposed to seat belt laws, but I'm not opposed to wearing a seat belt (which I've done when I'm in the front seat of a vehicle since I started driving).

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
There are plenty of tales of women with firearms, that never got a shot off, and MANY bad things soon happen to them.

But things just go hunky dory when they try to defend themselves without a weapon don't they? Or are you suggesting that the only reasonable course of action is to submit to the will of the attacker?

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
There are plenty of tales of women with firearms, that never got a shot off, and MANY bad things soon happen to them.

But things just go hunky dory when they try to defend themselves without a weapon don't they? Or are you suggesting that the only reasonable course of action is to submit to the will of the attacker?

I once saw a lecture by an ER doctor speaking on domestic violence. This man told a tale of a husband that nearly fatally beat his wife to death. The man was drunk and in a foul mood. He started in by verbally attacking his wife and then it led to throwing things at her. She grabbed his gun and hold it in a threatening manner towards him. But because she loved him, she hesitated. The photographs were hard to stomach. He took that gun and beat her with it. Sure, the guy is in jail. It took the hospital and its doctors months to repair the physical trauma. The mental and emotional damage will take longer.

Had she fired and killed him. Would it have been self defense? Or murder/man slaughter? She had two possible fates with that gun: A ) be beaten almost to death and spend the rest of her life recovering, or, B ) kill him and spend the next twenty years in prison? Not much of a decision given the outcomes.

What if she had grabbed the taser that was nearby? Would she have hesitated? I don't know.

You have this belief that if your gun was taken away, you would be totally defenseless. Maybe, maybe not. I'm not opposed to someone having a firearm that is responsible with it. That they keep control of it and their health. I have problems with those that have an attitude problem in conjunction with having/using them. Those that are irresponsible with their health and control of the arm.

I have no problem with women with firearms for self defense. I do have a problem if that's the only thing they were taught/trained to do. They didn't acquire the gun because they were afraid. But they got it because its one more layer in their own security and not living in fear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
There is no 'financial coercion' here, DS. Society, voted people to represent them into public office. Those individuals drafted a bill, voted on it, and was put into law. 'We' as a society have decided that 'X' is bad, and what a reasonable penalty would be for breaking it. That those penalties can be challenged in court under the 1st amendment that their 8th amendment has been interfered with in some way.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

There are plenty of tales of women with firearms, that never got a shot off, and MANY bad things soon happen to them.

But things just go hunky dory when they try to defend themselves without a weapon don't they? Or are you suggesting that the only reasonable course of action is to submit to the will of the attacker?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

1) I never called Americans barbaric.

sorry dude YESSSS yes you did

if civilized is a synonym of enlightened and barbaric/savage is an antonym of civilized then yeahhh you did!

or do I need to LOOK THIS UP TO? ohh wait I already did and posted the links for ya!

For my money, I think you've got PoliteSub on the ropes here, BY. The way you've argued, I think it almost impossible to believe that someone doesn't find you barbaric and savage, no matter how much he might try to deny it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

1) I never called Americans barbaric.

sorry dude YESSSS yes you did

if civilized is a synonym of enlightened and barbaric/savage is an antonym of civilized then yeahhh you did!

or do I need to LOOK THIS UP TO? ohh wait I already did and posted the links for ya!

FFS stupidity abounds. You should have spent less on guns and more on your education.