Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2012 2:47 pm
Two big thumbs down for Simon stealing yet another thread to support his druggie crusade. Obvious evidence MSimon's drug use has taken from him any common sense he might otherwise have had.
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Two big thumbs down for GIT for failing to notice that D brought up the subject first.GIThruster wrote: Two big thumbs down for Simon stealing yet another thread to support his druggie crusade. Obvious evidence MSimon's drug use has taken from him any common sense he might otherwise have had.
I have to admit I was baiting him a bit. I just couldn't resist. Simon, we may not always agree, but I love you bro!KitemanSA wrote:Two big thumbs down for GIT for failing to notice that D brought up the subject first.GIThruster wrote: Two big thumbs down for Simon stealing yet another thread to support his druggie crusade. Obvious evidence MSimon's drug use has taken from him any common sense he might otherwise have had.
True, MSimon's ktonne response may have been more than warrented, but...
The fact that experts are baffled at the drop in crime should say something abouth the worth of their opinions. After all most of them thought gun control was the cat's meow, but the more we had the higher crime got. I still think there is a massive deterrent effect to castle doctrine type laws and the growth of concealed carry permits (and the states allowing such) in the last decade. Headlines like this one don't hurt either. Sure the actually no. of bad guys smoked is miniscule, but they see the news to. Hearing about assailants shot/killed and the person doing it hailed a hero, no charges filed etc, must have some kind of a discouraging influence on criminals.Diogenes wrote:I have to admit I was baiting him a bit. I just couldn't resist. Simon, we may not always agree, but I love you bro!KitemanSA wrote:Two big thumbs down for GIT for failing to notice that D brought up the subject first.GIThruster wrote: Two big thumbs down for Simon stealing yet another thread to support his druggie crusade. Obvious evidence MSimon's drug use has taken from him any common sense he might otherwise have had.
True, MSimon's ktonne response may have been more than warrented, but...
I think for every number "X" of bad guys who get smoked by an armed citizen, the deterrence effect is X+Y, with Y being a non negative number. There are a lot of criminals who decide not to take the chance when they hear that criminals are getting shot.williatw wrote:The fact that experts are baffled at the drop in crime should say something abouth the worth of their opinions. After all most of them thought gun control was the cat's meow, but the more we had the higher crime got. I still think there is a massive deterrent effect to castle doctrine type laws and the growth of concealed carry permits (and the states allowing such) in the last decade. Headlines like this one don't hurt either. Sure the actually no. of bad guys smoked is miniscule, but they see the news to. Hearing about assailants shot/killed and the person doing it hailed a hero, no charges filed etc, must have some kind of a discouraging influence on criminals.Diogenes wrote:I have to admit I was baiting him a bit. I just couldn't resist. Simon, we may not always agree, but I love you bro!KitemanSA wrote: Two big thumbs down for GIT for failing to notice that D brought up the subject first.
True, MSimon's ktonne response may have been more than warrented, but...
I was living in Portland when the city moved to allow concealed carry. A decade earlier, Portland had topped the violent crime per capita in the US, because of all the fighting between the Cripps and Bloods. After a decade of this, Portland passed the concealed carry permit law and 2,000 licenses were issued in the first week. Crime dropped dramatically overnight. I remember a police officer telling me in some dismay (he was a gun control advocate as are most police--they want a monopoly on self defense) that bank robberies had gone from 14/month to less than 1/month in the first month of the new law. Criminals are simply afraid of being shot by Average Joes for committing crimes. The Cripps and Bloods moved all their bases of operation from Portland to Vancouver and crime continued to drop the remaining years I was there.williatw wrote:I still think there is a massive deterrent effect to castle doctrine type laws and the growth of concealed carry permits (and the states allowing such) in the last decade.
Would agree accept that I would probably go with 5-10(X). Thousands of would be criminals heard about that ladies defense, if only few percentage wise are deterred that could be many times the no. of incidents of defense publicized. When things like this happen our media will cover them dutifully and them get them out of the news as soon as possible. They tried their best to turn the Gifford's shooting into a cry for more gun control, and effort that floppped on its face. But they say little or nothing about the huge drop in crime that has occured in just the last few years. After all...how can Obama, Reid & Pelosi Bloomberg and their ilk admit homicide has dropped massively in the last few years inspite of more guns than ever and in their next breath say we need more gun control?Diogenes wrote:I think for every number "X" of bad guys who get smoked by an armed citizen, the deterrence effect is X+Y, with Y being a non negative number. There are a lot of criminals who decide not to take the chance when they hear that criminals are getting shot. As for experts, I am fond of the quip I found in my book on Murphy's law and corollarys.i]"Experts aren't. "[/i]
My first year living in Portland, I had an apartment next to a tiny Mom and Pop convenience store. I heard a bunch of shooting so stupidly, went to see what was going on.williatw wrote:Would agree accept that I would probably go with 5-10(X). Thousands of would be criminals heard about that ladies defense, if only few percentage wise are deterred that could be many times the no. of incidents of defense publicized. When things like this happen are media will cover them dutifully and them get them out of the news as soon as possible. They tried their best to turn the Gifford's shooting into a cry for more gun control, and effort that floppped on its face. But they say little or nothing about the huge drop in crime that has occured in just the last few years. After all...how can Obama, Reid & Pelosi Bloomberg and their ilk admit homicide has dropped massively in the last few years inspite of more guns than ever and in their next breath say we need more gun control?Diogenes wrote:I think for every number "X" of bad guys who get smoked by an armed citizen, the deterrence effect is X+Y, with Y being a non negative number. There are a lot of criminals who decide not to take the chance when they hear that criminals are getting shot. As for experts, I am fond of the quip I found in my book on Murphy's law and corollarys.i]"Experts aren't. "[/i]
As I recall from the Gifford event, was someone commeting how upset they were that they had left their weapon at home that day, and thus felt guilty they could not stop it.williatw wrote:Would agree accept that I would probably go with 5-10(X). Thousands of would be criminals heard about that ladies defense, if only few percentage wise are deterred that could be many times the no. of incidents of defense publicized. When things like this happen our media will cover them dutifully and them get them out of the news as soon as possible. They tried their best to turn the Gifford's shooting into a cry for more gun control, and effort that floppped on its face. But they say little or nothing about the huge drop in crime that has occured in just the last few years. After all...how can Obama, Reid & Pelosi Bloomberg and their ilk admit homicide has dropped massively in the last few years inspite of more guns than ever and in their next breath say we need more gun control?Diogenes wrote:I think for every number "X" of bad guys who get smoked by an armed citizen, the deterrence effect is X+Y, with Y being a non negative number. There are a lot of criminals who decide not to take the chance when they hear that criminals are getting shot. As for experts, I am fond of the quip I found in my book on Murphy's law and corollarys.i]"Experts aren't. "[/i]
I suspect it is more like X^Y where Y>1, probably >2. As a deterant, the quantity of "getting smoked" has a quality all its own.Diogenes wrote: [I think for every number "X" of bad guys who get smoked by an armed citizen, the deterrence effect is X+Y, with Y being a non negative number. There are a lot of criminals who decide not to take the chance when they hear that criminals are getting shot.
We do have the same prohibition here, but much less violence. Most violence here can be attributed to social conflict and some etnic conflicts as well to say it broadly without coming over as being politically incorrect.Wait a minute. Are you fellers telling me that prohibition has nothing to do with the general level of gun violence or that the policing of prohibition makes no difference in the general level of violence?
KitemanSA wrote:I suspect it is more like X^Y where Y>1, probably >2. As a deterant, the quantity of "getting smoked" has a quality all its own.Diogenes wrote: [I think for every number "X" of bad guys who get smoked by an armed citizen, the deterrence effect is X+Y, with Y being a non negative number. There are a lot of criminals who decide not to take the chance when they hear that criminals are getting shot.