The Rabbi

Thus my use of the term "decision", implying some forethought. A crime of passion wouldn't fall into that category. Again, I mystified by what your position is. If it is that some crime is economically motivated, that doesn't seem very insightful. One can always find isolated examples of whatever. If it is that you tend to find more crime among groups that exhibit certain socio-economic traits, again that seems like a blinding flash of the obvious. But if you insist that economics "has a huge effect on crime" as you implied in an earlier post, then I would have to disagree strongly.

Yeah, but if you burned someone with an espresso machine they could sue you. Could probably sue Kalashnikov too.

We have 90 guns for every 100 people. The question is: what do we do about the other ten??

Yeah, Urse. But can your rifle field an espresso machine with a 5cpm (cup per minute) cyclic rate?? Huh? Can it?

Too funny. I wish I had thought of it myself. Contact Joe at Hero Gear if you really want one:D

So "not all crime is economically motivated" but "economics...have a large role to play." At this point I confess to not knowing what your position is. If you say there are people out there who commit crimes because they are poor and need the money, I guess that's true. It is also not much of an insight. If you say that a very large number of crimes committed are done because people are poor, I disagree strongly. But I can't tell whether you mean to say that or not. It is certainly a far cry from: " We have to address the underlying social, philosophical, mental, and economical reasons for un-necessary violence and killing." As well as: "Also, there is statistical evidence to support the idea that good economic times lower crime rates. Some people will work rather than steal if given the opportunity. Not all of them, but some. Showing my bias here, but I believe economic issues, both macro and micro, local, national, international, all have a HUGE impact on everything from crime, to poverty, to international relations, etc."

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Right, Fury. The decision to engage in crime rests on 2 things: 1) How likely is it the perpetrator will get caught? 2) If he does get caught, how severe will the punishment be? Under a system where police are over-burdened investigating murders and rapes then the answer to 1) is not very. Under a system where prisons are over-crowded so many petty crimes are given time served then the answer to 2) is not very. So this is why we have much more crime.

Dave, that's nonsense. People who commit crimes are overwhelmingly single (Black) men in their teens and 20s who are not married and living at home. The idea that they are stealing to support their families is a myth. They might steal or commit other crimes because they can't find an entry level job and are bored. But that's another issue.

I had a gun just like that and gave it away.

You have undermined your own argument by admitting that many (the majority) of poor people do not commit murder, or other felonious acts. Most murders are committed under the influence of drugs. Two people argue and it escalates until one is standing over a dead body with little idea how it got that way. There is no economics involved. I once asked a public defender lawyer how many of his cases involved drugs/alcohol. He told me virtually all of them. The number of murders committed pursuant to a gang war is actually pretty small. Poverty does not cause crime, any more than pregnancy causes children. I know it is an icon of the liberal mindset but it is not true and has been debunked for probably 40 years. What does cause it is a cultural mindset that emphasizes: easy quick solutions to hard problems, lack of personal responsibility, and lack of consequences for actions taken. Tackle those issues and the others will fall into place.

No, the notion that people commit crimes because they are poor is a non-starter. There are many poor people who do not commit crimes. As for killing, most killings are crimes of passion. In TN you are far more likely to be killed by someone you know than by someone you don't. That includes jealous spouses, crazy in-laws etc. As for drugs, I am aware of one society that successfully battled a drug problem so endemic it affected the highest levels of society. Virtually every segment, from government to military to business, was negatively affected because even people in the upper echelons were whacked out on drugs. This is what happens when drugs are decriminalized/legalized. But within 20 years the problem pretty well ceased to exist. That sounds like success to me.

Damn, that's a big bullet....

Yeah, like repealing any restriction on carry anywhere in the state.

The difference between a 1911-type trigger and a DAO trigger is like night and day. Yes, it will take a lot of getting used to. No, I don't think it can ever be made to feel like a 1911.

What Dems have I been talking to? None. But the ones who matter, the ones who vote with their wallets, are backing Hillary like no one's business. As for "desirable", in the new Democratic Party the only thing desirable is winning. Everything else is secondary to that. In my day there were Democrats who were truly honorable people. Pat Moynihan was probably the last one. Today the party is defined by the Barney Frank Wing, and their mantra "you don't like it? Stick it up your ass." In any decent party, Frank would be a bad memory. Alcee Hastings would be selling used cars somewhere, not in Congress. Remember Wilbur Mills? Today he would be out of rehab and on talk shows, and of course still chairman of the Ways and Means committee. Who was the last Democrat to resign in order to spare the party? I can't think of one. Republicans regularly do this because they are at base decent people, albeit clueless when dealing with the animals on the other side of the aisle.

Len, what is an "economic reason" for killing? How many killings, outside of the drug world, are motivated by economics? Please explain.

The Democrats LOVE Hillary. She is their best big hope. Lots of name recognition. She is running to the center and actually sounds credible. She is their best hope for taking the White House and as long as she is a Dem it doesn't really matter what her policies are. Behind her whom do the Dems have? Obama? He is a nothing, an empty suit. Richardson is their best candidate but like Lieberman they will toss him aside because they smell victory.

The Republicans have a leadership deficit. Typically in this situation the VP would be running (think George Sr). Cheney doesnt want the job, nor could be elected to it if he did. No one running has much in the way of credentials. The best one credential-wise is Richardson. But I just couldn't vote for him--his website makes him out to be just another big government liberal. Ron Paul is the unelectable element in the GOP. I have voted Republican in every election since Reagan I and I wouldn't vote for him. Ditto for Tancredo, who is a nobody hoping to ride anti-immigrant fervor. But guess what, without the Hispanic vote the GOP isn't going to win. And they aren't voting for Tancredo. I like Fred. I will support Fred. I wish Fred had a better resume. He could make it up with someone really strong for VP. I just don't know who. Giuliani? How anyone can be anti-gun and expect to get the nomination is beyond me. Hillary will be the force to beat. She has assembled a big grass roots organization with access to all the funding sources. She is smart, very smart. She knows how to manipulate the press (not that they will need much help). She will say or do anything to get elected. How she would govern is anyone's guess since she has no core political beliefs other than win.

If they disallowed people with DUIs from getting a gun in this state, half the citizens would be barred. I know someone who had one in KY a few years ago. No problem buying guns or getting his permit.

Nothing compared to descriptions I've heard from people who went through Taser training. Can you say OUCH?

Definitely! I am considering instructing my heirs to bury one and a case of ammo with me. I figure at the resurrection there will be a lot of worthless SOBs who'll need to be taken out.

Actually it's a fact that some large number of both soldiers and police officers are incapable of firing on another person under stress. I am glad I will likely never have to be in that situation. I couldn't predict with any certainty whether I could or not. I know philosophically I have no problem with it. But it is an unknown.

Protest Easy Guns campaign is coming to Nashville, Fri Oct 5. Why anyone thinks this is new and/or different is beyond me. But it will elicit the same garbage comments it always does. http://www.protesteasyguns.com/about.html#upcoming Check the thread at arf.com

According to the link $375 But they probably teach you NOT to do this with your gun: [ame] [/ame]