Seems somebody at the Miami Herald wants you dead

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

As for testosterone, what?.... are the girls wearing patches?

You say that like you beleive women don't have testosterone.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

They've just been reappropriated. lol

Collectivism personified.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

It is not junk science. It has never been even rebutted, let alone debunked. Read More Guns, Less Crime and you will enjoy enlightenment. Until you do, you will be victimized by any crime and any genocidal episode that comes along. See Simkin, Zelman, and Rice for the connection between gun "control" and genocides. They haven't been rebutted either.

I have enjoyed this enlightenment, and am thereby proof against any and all antigun arguments -- the progun arguments are too solid and too good. Couple billion dollars too good. General gun ownership is also the only known genocide preventative, and genocide is best dealt with ahead of time. The force of the State is not, and cannot be, a bulwark against an episode of genocide.

Never rebutted? Try reading this article. Or this one. Or this one. Or this one. Have many more if you like.

The Stanford Law Review critique, authored by Yale's Ayres and Stanford's Donohue, analyzed more recent crime statistics, extending Lott's original 1977-1992 crime dataset to include data through the late 1990s. As it turned out, after 1992, partly due to the end of the 1980s' crack cocaine-related crime wave, crime rates dropped dramatically in states with large urban centers, many of which had not passed right to carry laws. This fact proves highly inconvenient to the "More Guns, Less Crime" argument. After testing Lott and Mustard's analysis with more years of data and different econometric tweakings, Donohue and Ayres conclude, "No longer can any plausible case be made on statistical grounds that shall-issue laws are likely to reduce crime for all or even most states"; their analysis even suggested such laws might increase violent crime.

Can we take a junk-scientist like Lott serious, a rolling stone who used aliasses and sock puppets to post several five star reviews of his books on Amazon.com or to attack his critics and defend his work online? Creating a false identity for a scholar usually goes down as fraud in science circles. Furthermore Lott found himself facing serious criticism of his professional ethics earlier this year. Pressed by critics, he failed to produce evidence of the existence of a survey, which supposedly found that "98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack", that he claimed to have conducted in the second edition.

See Simkin, Zelman, and Rice for the connection between gun "control" and genocides

I believe Simkin and Rice are not on speaking terms with Zelman anymore? They write this on their website:

Zelman forced his earliest and strongest supporters to spend tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers, which outlays could have been avoided entirely. In his zeal to brutalize those who had been kind to him for many years, Zelman spent many thousands of his contributors' dollars not to fight "gun control", but to try to keep control of a book - LETHAL LAWS - that he claimed had so little value that it was not worth republishing properly. If LETHAL LAWS were worth so little, why did Zelman spend so much to keep it? And, even if Zelman knew it had more value than he was willing to admit, why should Zelman have been so nasty to those, who had done so much to help him destroy "gun control"?

We think that "fighting 'gun control'" is a business for almost all of those who earn their living from it. We have further concluded that most of those who oppose"gun control" do not actually want to see it destroyed, because they would then have to get real jobs, producing real goods or real services. Giving time or money to help any "pro-gun" group with full-time, salaried officers, is simply building someone else's retirement nest-egg. It doesn't make any difference whether the group is "effective" or not. "Pro-gun" groups with employees simply provide a nice standard of living to those employees. JPFO, Inc., is simply an unusually clear example of this. It is by no means alone. The "pro-gun" groups worth supporting are those staffed by volunteers, who are simply reimbursed for their expenses, or by part-timers, i.e, by those who have jobs - or own businesses - from which they get the bulk of their income.

Re genocide: the claim that Nazi gun control law in 1938 to maintain their power is false. Gun control, the Law on Firearms and Ammunition, was already introduced to Germany in 1928 under the Weimar regime (there was no Right to Arms in the Constitution of 1919) in large part to disarm the Nazi SA. Hence the Nazi came to power by the ballot box (and some By backroom backstabbing, double-crossing, threats, and promises, including among former Chancellor Franz von Papen, present Chancellor Lieutenant General Kurt von Schleicher, and the elected President Hindenburg.) and not by an armed coup.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Having actually read the material I cite, I say the necessity of the three root causes of any genocide being present is amply proven, and the case proving it is formidable. You have not addressed the case by bringing up a side issue of who's arguing over what.

If the cops are armed, so should the people be.
It is not hard.

[Hippikos]

You have not addressed the case by bringing up a side issue of who's arguing over what.

Did you read the last paragraph in my message or only looked at it?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Now go back to the page and read, and do try to restrain your impulse to click the mouse spasmodically in random locations without actually reading the page and then returning here in triumph claiming that the link is bogus.

Not until you answer the questions I asked you, personally. Not what the law says. What Maggie would do.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Collectivism personified.

You're an admitted collectivist.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

You're an admitted collectivist.

Nonsense. Now you're playing tw...and you don't do it well.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Nonsense. Now you're playing tw...and you don't do it well.

Not nonsense. You stated you aren't averse to all taxes. You're merely a selfish collectivist, which is much more communist than tw, who leans toward the socialist side of collectivism.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Not nonsense. You stated you aren't averse to all taxes. You're merely a selfish collectivist, which is much more communist than tw, who leans toward the socialist side of collectivism.

When I pay taxes that pay for law enforcement, I get value for that.

It's not cooercive collectivism, where value is taken from me to be redistributed to someone who "deserves" it, or to meet some other social engineering goal.

I'm not as pure a libertatian as some, and I'm not an anarchist.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

When I pay taxes that pay for law enforcement, I get value for that.

It's not cooercive collectivism, where value is taken from me to be redistributed to someone who "deserves" it, or to meet some other social engineering goal.

I'm not as pure a libertatian as some, and I'm not an anarchist.

Semantics...

[Aliantha]

Doesn't anyone who chooses to live in a society and pay taxes agree to collectivist principals...even if it is by default?

BTW Maggie, I couldn't find the post that you were quoting from. What number was it?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Semantics...

"...is the subfield of linguistics that is devoted to the study of meaning."

Rather an important thing to dismiss so casually.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

Not until you answer the questions I asked you, personally.

Not happening. My answer incorprated the law by reference. If you won't read it, you don't care about my answer, you just want to troll.

"Asked and answered", as they say in court. Go read. You went to that site and ran back here screaming that there was no law on those pages and telling me I should check before posting.

Now that I've pointed out that it actually is there, and that your post claming that it wasn't was utter hogwash, go read it and educate your ignorant ass.