(07-09-2014 04:02 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Deterrence has to at some point enter into the vocabulary of liberals. An armed society is a polite society.

Deterrence assumes the would be attacker is emotionally stable and thinking logically. Can't assume either one.
While it's a lousy comparison I know, the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent as well. How well is that working out?

So if they are not emotionally stable and thinking logically, then they are not guilty by reason of insanity. So you could never get a conviction.

Liberals love lawlessness. The guilty are never really guilty, just never got breast feed by mommy.

For someone who claims to be an officer of the law, you sure know very little about it.

(07-09-2014 04:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:02 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Deterrence has to at some point enter into the vocabulary of liberals. An armed society is a polite society.

Deterrence assumes the would be attacker is emotionally stable and thinking logically. Can't assume either one.
While it's a lousy comparison I know, the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent as well. How well is that working out?

So if they are not emotionally stable and thinking logically, then they are not guilty by reason of insanity. So you could never get a conviction.

Liberals love lawlessness. The guilty are never really guilty, just never got breast feed by mommy.

For someone who claims to be an officer of the law, you sure know very little about it.

Sometimes when I read your posts the logic is so hard to follow I think you are confusing your response to me with a response you meant for someone else. We are talking about deterrence, not legal distinctions between levels of guilt. I don't give a f... what you call it. If you are shot your shot. period. If you are shot, it follows there was no meaningful deterrence. Comprende? 1st degree, 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, ngri, doesn't matter. Got it? if you are shot, who gives a shiiit what statistic you put the shooting under? at the time of the shooting, there was NO DETERRENCE!! sheesh
As my girl Hillary says "what difference does it make?"

(07-09-2014 05:17 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:35 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 04:02 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Deterrence has to at some point enter into the vocabulary of liberals. An armed society is a polite society.

Deterrence assumes the would be attacker is emotionally stable and thinking logically. Can't assume either one.
While it's a lousy comparison I know, the death penalty is supposed to be a deterrent as well. How well is that working out?

So if they are not emotionally stable and thinking logically, then they are not guilty by reason of insanity. So you could never get a conviction.

Liberals love lawlessness. The guilty are never really guilty, just never got breast feed by mommy.

For someone who claims to be an officer of the law, you sure know very little about it.

Sometimes when I read your posts the logic is so hard to follow I think you are confusing your response to me with a response you meant for someone else. We are talking about deterrence, not legal distinctions between levels of guilt. I don't give a f... what you call it. If you are shot your shot. period. If you are shot, it follows there was no meaningful deterrence. Comprende? 1st degree, 2nd, 3rd, manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, ngri, doesn't matter. Got it? if you are shot, who gives a shiiit what statistic you put the shooting under? at the time of the shooting, there was NO DETERRENCE!! sheesh
As my girl Hillary says "what difference does it make?"

By that logic, it does not matter how you are killed, dead is dead, you are dead so it does not matter.

(07-09-2014 03:55 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Deterrence has to at some point enter into the vocabulary of liberals. An armed society is a polite society.

No, an armed society is a very, very frightened society. Never knowing who might be having a bad hair day and decide they don't like your looks and because they won't tell you in advance what's about to happen, you are now lying in a pool of your own blood, weapon still holstered with a cap in your ass. But man, you sure felt safe, right up to the minute you realized you'd been unexpectedly, out of nowhere shot.

True, true. But if you aren't carrying, wouldn't the same thing occur? You'd be dead either way. I don't carry, I have a nervous wife who watches too many murder mysteries, LOL.

It's not out of the question though, that is, a CCP for me. Around here we have the drug problem and I imagine that there are those in that business who carry (for their own protection from others in the business) that's why you never hear of people getting into road rage arguments as you don't know who might be carrying, for a good or bad reason. I just mumble to myself, LOL.

(07-09-2014 01:51 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 01:48 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  As an example, Chicago's murder rate has been in a downward trend for a long time - decades, really. Meanwhile, the state just recently (late last year) allowed concealed carry. Obviously there's something else going on that made it drop. For Chicago the rate is still high compared to other big cities, I believe, due mostly to the gang violence.

I've seen the conclusion drawn before - variable X is increasing over time, and halfway through the trend, event Y occurs. Then people claim that "X went up after Y occurred" and conclude that Y caused X.

Some of that drop might be because Chicago has lost well over 200,000 residents over the last 10 years. less targets, less perps. Sometimes they find their way to first older suburban rings.

They've also started fudging the numbers and how they are reported. Much like unemployment, deportations and inflation, it's a different "formula".

For instance, and this is my understanding, I welcome anyone to double check this, a "shooting incident" is reported as one crime, shootings are singular whether it's 1 victim or 6. So shootings are down, body count can be up, or neutral.
There are other "fixes" in place as well, all in the effort to spin the stats and further ignore another problem.

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:05 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:02 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  a law abiding citizen is less likely to get jacked, robbed, beaten if perps think they are carrying. Same deal for someone breaking in a home or a home invasion. Perps want easy safe targets. They don't want to get shot.

How are they going to know if the weapon is concealed?

You really are dense. They don't have to know, just know there's a greater possibility.

Yep.

Same reason all the mass shootings are in the liberal utopias that are "gun-free"/victim disarmament zones.

Owl and JMUPUNK will tell you these shootings are statistically insignificant. Of course, not to the statistics themselves.

Hey, dick? How about not stating what I may "tell" anyone, or acting as if you could EVER speak for me, on anything, mmmkay? You're too fuckingg stupid to ever speak for me. So while I am making an assumption that your 2nd grade attempt to be funny by altering the screenname is directed at me, speak of me or to me only when addressed first, okay? Not prior, not in my absence, and clearly not in a thread in which I have not posted. Fair enough, you dolt?

To think someone as stupid as you would ever be trusted with a gun of any sort, be it an airsoft or anything else, may be enough to make me rethink my entire gun ownership position. I'd be surprised if you were smart enough to know which end to point at the bad guy...

(07-09-2014 05:57 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:55 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Deterrence has to at some point enter into the vocabulary of liberals. An armed society is a polite society.

No, an armed society is a very, very frightened society. Never knowing who might be having a bad hair day and decide they don't like your looks and because they won't tell you in advance what's about to happen, you are now lying in a pool of your own blood, weapon still holstered with a cap in your ass. But man, you sure felt safe, right up to the minute you realized you'd been unexpectedly, out of nowhere shot.

True, true. But if you aren't carrying, wouldn't the same thing occur? You'd be dead either way. I don't carry, I have a nervous wife who watches too many murder mysteries, LOL.

It's not out of the question though, that is, a CCP for me. Around here we have the drug problem and I imagine that there are those in that business who carry (for their own protection from others in the business) that's why you never hear of people getting into road rage arguments as you don't know who might be carrying, for a good or bad reason. I just mumble to myself, LOL.

Ollie I get what you are saying, so just let me speak for myself. I, personally, would not feel safer knowing everyone is packing. In fact, I would feel far less safe. One thing I know from personal experience is that many people, especially young men, feel a sense of false bravado when they are strapped. They actually become more assaultive and risk taking.
The assumption here seems to be that predators, knowing everyone is armed, will be less aggressive. We don't know that for a fact, one could just as easily argue people who wouldn't ordinarily be a predator will become obne, and unstable people, now armed, will be more likely to use their weapon. We've already seen plenty of examples of "collateral damage" when 2 peole get into a gunfight. Now imagine that happening much more frequently if for no other reason people feel they have to shoot first cause the other guy may be packing. Simple disagrements and heated disputes now become fire fights with lots of innocent bystanders getting hit. No thanks.

(07-09-2014 06:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:05 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:03 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  How are they going to know if the weapon is concealed?

You really are dense. They don't have to know, just know there's a greater possibility.

Yep.

Same reason all the mass shootings are in the liberal utopias that are "gun-free"/victim disarmament zones.

Owl and JMUPUNK will tell you these shootings are statistically insignificant. Of course, not to the statistics themselves.

Hey, dick? How about not stating what I may "tell" anyone, or acting as if you could EVER speak for me, on anything, mmmkay? You're too fuckingg stupid to ever speak for me. So while I am making an assumption that your 2nd grade attempt to be funny by altering the screenname is directed at me, speak of me or to me only when addressed first, okay? Not prior, not in my absence, and clearly not in a thread in which I have not posted. Fair enough, you dolt?

To think someone as stupid as you would ever be trusted with a gun of any sort, be it an airsoft or anything else, may be enough to make me rethink my entire gun ownership opinion. I'd be surprised if you were smart enough to know which end to point at the bad guy...

You know, you sound a little bit like a guy who grew up in an abusive household. Full of rage. I'm pretty sure I was right about you once before when I suggested you are a bully. You are clearly a very, very angry person. Get help.

(07-09-2014 06:48 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Ollie I get what you are saying, so just let me speak for myself. I, personally, would not feel safer knowing everyone is packing. In fact, I would feel far less safe. One thing I know from personal experience is that many people, especially young men, feel a sense of false bravado when they are strapped. They actually become more assaultive and risk taking.
The assumption here seems to be that predators, knowing everyone is armed, will be less aggressive. We don't know that for a fact, one could just as easily argue people who wouldn't ordinarily be a predator will become obne, and unstable people, now armed, will be more likely to use their weapon. We've already seen plenty of examples of "collateral damage" when 2 peole get into a gunfight. Now imagine that happening much more frequently if for no other reason people feel they have to shoot first cause the other guy may be packing. Simple disagrements and heated disputes now become fire fights with lots of innocent bystanders getting hit. No thanks.

Of course, that doesn't appear to be how things work out in places that have tried it.

And for the record, what makes you feel safer is a horses-t way to determine policy.

(07-09-2014 06:55 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 06:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:05 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  You really are dense. They don't have to know, just know there's a greater possibility.

Yep.

Same reason all the mass shootings are in the liberal utopias that are "gun-free"/victim disarmament zones.

Owl and JMUPUNK will tell you these shootings are statistically insignificant. Of course, not to the statistics themselves.

Hey, dick? How about not stating what I may "tell" anyone, or acting as if you could EVER speak for me, on anything, mmmkay? You're too fuckingg stupid to ever speak for me. So while I am making an assumption that your 2nd grade attempt to be funny by altering the screenname is directed at me, speak of me or to me only when addressed first, okay? Not prior, not in my absence, and clearly not in a thread in which I have not posted. Fair enough, you dolt?

To think someone as stupid as you would ever be trusted with a gun of any sort, be it an airsoft or anything else, may be enough to make me rethink my entire gun ownership opinion. I'd be surprised if you were smart enough to know which end to point at the bad guy...

You know, you sound a little bit like a guy who grew up in an abusive household. Full of rage. I'm pretty sure I was right about you once before when I suggested you are a bully. You are clearly a very, very angry person. Get help.

Oh, one other thing- don't ever presume to tell me what to do. Ever. You're too stupid to give a 6 year old instruction, it's a cinch I don't need it, especially from someone as dumb as you.
So again, don't ever try to speak for me, don't speak to me or of me unless I address your dumbasss first. And finally don't ever try to tell me what to do. Got it, moron?

Thanks.

(07-09-2014 07:10 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 06:55 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 06:46 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:59 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:53 PM)Kronke Wrote:  Yep.

Same reason all the mass shootings are in the liberal utopias that are "gun-free"/victim disarmament zones.

Owl and JMUPUNK will tell you these shootings are statistically insignificant. Of course, not to the statistics themselves.

Hey, dick? How about not stating what I may "tell" anyone, or acting as if you could EVER speak for me, on anything, mmmkay? You're too fuckingg stupid to ever speak for me. So while I am making an assumption that your 2nd grade attempt to be funny by altering the screenname is directed at me, speak of me or to me only when addressed first, okay? Not prior, not in my absence, and clearly not in a thread in which I have not posted. Fair enough, you dolt?

To think someone as stupid as you would ever be trusted with a gun of any sort, be it an airsoft or anything else, may be enough to make me rethink my entire gun ownership opinion. I'd be surprised if you were smart enough to know which end to point at the bad guy...

You know, you sound a little bit like a guy who grew up in an abusive household. Full of rage. I'm pretty sure I was right about you once before when I suggested you are a bully. You are clearly a very, very angry person. Get help.

Oh, one other thing- don't ever presume to tell me what to do. Ever. You're too stupid to give a 6 year old instruction, it's a cinch I don't need it, especially from someone as dumb as you.
So again, don't ever try to speak for me, don't speak to me or of me unless I address your dumbasss first. And finally don't ever try to tell me what to do. Got it, moron?

Thanks.

If I could close my eyes and have someone read your post to me, I'd think I was hearing the words of a 10 year old. "don't talk to me, don't tell me what to do". Clearly a person with issues.

(07-09-2014 07:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 06:48 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Ollie I get what you are saying, so just let me speak for myself. I, personally, would not feel safer knowing everyone is packing. In fact, I would feel far less safe. One thing I know from personal experience is that many people, especially young men, feel a sense of false bravado when they are strapped. They actually become more assaultive and risk taking.
The assumption here seems to be that predators, knowing everyone is armed, will be less aggressive. We don't know that for a fact, one could just as easily argue people who wouldn't ordinarily be a predator will become obne, and unstable people, now armed, will be more likely to use their weapon. We've already seen plenty of examples of "collateral damage" when 2 peole get into a gunfight. Now imagine that happening much more frequently if for no other reason people feel they have to shoot first cause the other guy may be packing. Simple disagrements and heated disputes now become fire fights with lots of innocent bystanders getting hit. No thanks.

Of course, that doesn't appear to be how things work out in places that have tried it.

And for the record, what makes you feel safer is a horses-t way to determine policy.

You're not going to do your whole correlation/causation thing? Come on. Don't be a hypocrite.

Hey ODUh,

Where is your statistical data to support your statements ? Or is this just the opinion of a guy that likes to play dress up with a badge and is threatened because he's not the only one with a weapon on his person? Ego perhaps getting in your way ODUh?


Posted from my mobile device using the CSNbbs App

(07-09-2014 02:13 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:06 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 02:06 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  Or, maybe most of the new permit holders are lousy shots. Not buying the preventive effect at all. Most crimes are crimes of passion, opportunity and impulse. People don't think about whether some one is packing before they act out.

Personal experience?

Yep, 8 years as a federal law officer.

That explains your liberalism. What is a federal law officer anyway?

(07-09-2014 03:55 PM)Old Dominion Wrote:  

(07-09-2014 03:49 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Deterrence has to at some point enter into the vocabulary of liberals. An armed society is a polite society.

No, an armed society is a very, very frightened society. Never knowing who might be having a bad hair day and decide they don't like your looks and because they won't tell you in advance what's about to happen, you are now lying in a pool of your own blood, weapon still holstered with a cap in your ass. But man, you sure felt safe, right up to the minute you realized you'd been unexpectedly, out of nowhere shot.

Right, because that happens all the time among HCP holders huh?