[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by sleepy

Why are you avoiding the question?

im not avoiding,,be patient

[sleepy]

How many years do we have to "be patient" for you to answer a yes or no question?

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by sleepy

How many years do we have to "be patient" for you to answer a yes or no question?

yes and no
depending on which one

[sleepy]

Car insurance?

[wytnyt]

health insurance

[sleepy]

You have health insurance? or you don't?

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by sleepy

You have health insurance? or you don't?

yes i do
vvrroom

[sleepy]

Why? If you don't get sick you don't need to carry health insurance. According to your posts.
If you don't crash your car you don't need car insurance.
If you don't set your house on fire you don't need a smoke detector or a fire department.
If no one from your town commits a crime you don't a police department. so why have/pay for cops and fire department?
Are you expecting to crash your car, burn down your house or have a crime wave?

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by sleepy

Why? If you don't get sick you don't need to carry health insurance. According to your posts.

its free,comes with my work

[sleepy]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

its free,comes with my work

It's NOT free. It costs your employer who COULD give you more pay if he didn't have to pay for your health insurance, So it costs YOU.

[wytnyt]

Originally Posted by sleepy

It's NOT free. It costs your employer who COULD give you more pay if he didn't have to pay for your health insurance, So it costs YOU.

no its free,,my pay was the same before and after,except for the raise i got
so my pay went up
hmm,maybe if i got more health ins,i would get more pay too

[Cobrabill]

Originally Posted by wytnyt

no its free,,my pay was the same before and after,except for the raise i got
so my pay went up
hmm,maybe if i got more health ins,i would get more pay too

[hurryinhoosier62]

For all of you gunphobic individuals, the AVERAGE response time for law enforcement is 8mins. Here's a question; are you willing to put YOUR FAMILY'S SAFETY in the balance based on an eight minute response time? I am NOT!! I have been a CCW license holder since 1989. I've NEVER had to take my weapon out of its holster. I go to the range every month. In my world, considering the number of meth-related break-ins and assaults in the area, it's prudent. BTW, I live in a rural area in S. Central Indiana.

[PonchoV8]

When seconds count, police are minutes away. I don't think the gun control arguments were actually serious. We shouldn't be able to buy guns at stores, but we should be able to own guns for home protection? Then where do we buy them from?

Originally Posted by hurryinhoosier62

In my world, considering the number of meth-related break-ins and assaults in the area, it's prudent. BTW, I live in a rural area in S. Central Indiana.

Meth-central Indiana.

[moto-d]

Ian Ayres: William K. Townsend Professor at the Yale Law School and a Professor at the Yale School of Management.

John Donohue III: law professor at Stanford, and economist known for his writings on effect of legalized abortion on crime and criticism of the More Guns, Less Crime theory of John Lott.

[moto-d]

Hemenway, David (December 31, 1998). "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws / Making A Killing: The business of guns in America". The New England Journal of Medicine 339 (27): 2029–30.

Ayres, Ian; John J. Donohue III (April 2003). "Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis". Stanford Law Review 55 (4): 1193. doi:10.2139/ssrn.343781.

Kleck, Gary (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

NAS, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) Executive Summary, Major Conclusions, page 2. Chapter 6 Right-to-Carry Laws, pages 120-151, reviews research by Lott and others on this issue.

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by moto-d

Hemenway, David (December 31, 1998). "More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding crime and gun-control laws / Making A Killing: The business of guns in America". The New England Journal of Medicine 339 (27): 2029–30.

Ayres, Ian; John J. Donohue III (April 2003). "Shooting Down the 'More Guns, Less Crime' Hypothesis". Stanford Law Review 55 (4): 1193. doi:10.2139/ssrn.343781.

Kleck, Gary (1997). Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

NAS, Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review (2004) Executive Summary, Major Conclusions, page 2. Chapter 6 Right-to-Carry Laws, pages 120-151, reviews research by Lott and others on this issue.

Thank you for the cites. The Ayres paper can be downloaded through google scholar if anyone cares. I am trying to download the Hemenway NEJOM article, but the library system seems to be down.

As for academia in general having a leaning more towards the Progressive (aka socialist) agenda, that is no conspiracy, that is just fact of life. Also note that it really is improper to call Progressives Liberals. Unfortunately the word "liberal" has been tragically distorted in meaning and I resent that fact. Liberal comes from the word Liberty, and Liberal ideas are what this country was built on. However, during the FDR presidency, which was anything but liberal, certain policies were labeled as "liberal" and thus the whole meaning of the word got twisted around and perverted.

So real Liberals must now call themselves either Classic Liberals or another unclear term, Libertarian, but I digress...

Since we this thread has turned more in the direction of crime reduction, the simplest way to accomplish that is to legalize drugs. Unfortunately, the Protestant roots of this nation run deep and people love to legislate what others can or cannot put in their bodies.

Andrew

[moto-d]

Originally Posted by andrewb70

Thank you for the cites. The Ayres paper can be downloaded through google scholar if anyone cares. I am trying to download the Hemenway NEJOM article, but the library system seems to be down.

As for academia in general having a leaning more towards the Progressive (aka socialist) agenda, that is no conspiracy, that is just fact of life. Also note that it really is improper to call Progressives Liberals. Unfortunately the word "liberal" has been tragically distorted in meaning and I resent that fact. Liberal comes from the word Liberty, and Liberal ideas are what this country was built on. However, during the FDR presidency, which was anything but liberal, certain policies were labeled as "liberal" and thus the whole meaning of the word got twisted around and perverted.

So real Liberals must now call themselves either Classic Liberals or another unclear term, Libertarian, but I digress...

Since we this thread has turned more in the direction of crime reduction, the simplest way to accomplish that is to legalize drugs. Unfortunately, the Protestant roots of this nation run deep and people love to legislate what others can or cannot put in their bodies.

Andrew

No problem, Andrew, glad to provide. I'm afraid you and I will have to agree to disagree on Progressives being socialists, as there are simply too many millionaire Progressives who achieved their wealth through capitalism -- the antithesis of socialism.

As a nation, we were founded on classical liberalism, so you're right, the term has come to mean something else. What you refer to as a "socialist" in the US is more akin to social liberalism, a belief in a greater role for the state than classical free-market (John Locke) liberals would believe in. Roosevelt was certainly a social liberal, and being the scion of a family who made millions from privately owned enterprises, could not legitimately be called a socialist.

[andrewb70]

Originally Posted by moto-d

No problem, Andrew, glad to provide. I'm afraid you and I will have to agree to disagree on Progressives being socialists, as there are simply too many millionaire Progressives who achieved their wealth through capitalism -- the antithesis of socialism.

As a nation, we were founded on classical liberalism, so you're right, the term has come to mean something else. What you refer to as a "socialist" in the US is more akin to social liberalism, a belief in a greater role for the state than classical free-market (John Locke) liberals would believe in. Roosevelt was certainly a social liberal, and being the scion of a family who made millions from privately owned enterprises, could not legitimately be called a socialist.

We are getting way off the thread here, but that may be OK. The various labels can definitely be confusing. You are right, there are definitely many Progressives that have attained wealth through private enterprise, however, I would not agree that it was anything that resembled true, free market capitalism. It is more akin to corporatism where corporate interests gain advantage through government interventions that favor their particular company or more often a particular industry. That is largely what has been happening in America over the last century, give or take...

Progressive is actually a good label for socialist, because the term is derived from Marx. Marx believe that it is the natural progress of society to move from Feudalism, to Capitalism, to Socialism, to Communism, hence the term Progressive...

For me the term Social Liberal is an oxymoron because socialist doctrine is violent in nature and very much against liberty.

Andrew

[hurryinhoosier62]

moto-d,

ALL the sources you cite are PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS. Are you a PROGRESSIVE LIBERAL?
Let's look at Great Britain, shall we? Firearm ownership is severely restricted.Great Britain now has the HIGHEST violent crime rate in Western Europe. Coincidence? Every home in Switzerland has a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon in it (as long as militia member lives there),yet has one of the LOWEST violent crime rates in the world. Coincidence?
You're starting to sound like a certain individual that used to "rabble-rouse" around Racine. His name is Alex Karas (no relation to the famous football player/actor). He used to scream that Wisconsin would turn into a "shooting gallery" if CCW was approved by the state legislature. Well, it's been approved. Has Wisconsin turn into a "shooting gallery"? BTW, don't try to use North Milwaukee as an example. It's ALWAYS been a lawless area inhabited by the GDs and the Bloods!!