Originally Posted by dg806

Originally Posted by WillBrink

Check this out. San Antonio: "Man Recounts Shooting of Home Intruder"
From WOAI NBC 4 San Antonio:


Man Recounts Shooting of Home Intruder : ClipSyndicate Video

What I found interesting about this clip is, the intruder didn't have a weapon. Anti gun types like to say ignorant things like "if no one had guns" and other fantasy talk due to watching too much TV and failing to use their brains. Rock, stick, knife, or nothing at all, bad guy can harm you. In magic TV land of anti gun types, he should have given the guy a karate chop and called the police....

PS: There's a lesson in the vid about safety on guns anyone who owns guns should take heed...

Originally Posted by bio-chem

very nice post. that is important to remember. when in a tense situation little things like a safety on a gun become a huge issue. holy crap. that is a scary situation.

Originally Posted by WillBrink

If disengaging the safety under pressure is not completely instinctual (due to extensive training) don't own a gun with a safety. Had the bad guy had a weapon and or decided to charge him at that moment, he and his family could be dead.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

i dont care how much training you have had. the first time you have to point a gun at a man and pull the trigger to kill it is impossible to know what your personal reaction will be.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

I've spoken to plenty of marines, and cops who have had to use their weapons and all of them are full of stories like that.

Originally Posted by bio-chem

im really glad that the guy kept his head about him and was able to handle the situation so well. I only hope if im placed in that situation things will turn out so well.

Originally Posted by danzik17

Unless your bud is a cop or marine or something, I think he is doin something wrong

Originally Posted by WillBrink

You asked no relevant questions about the lit that was offered, and made no attempt to offer any of your own and or do the research to answer the questions. Many of your questions were at the level of a 6th grader like "Lott can't be the only researcher right?'� and other gems. No one said he was, there are plenty of others. Duh...and no one is hinging an entire position on a single researcher. I know most of the primary researchers in the field and have read their work. Sent you the URL for a full down load, and best you could do was make more 6th grader level remarks on it, because you clearly have no interest in actually researching the topic.

Read the full SCOTUS ruling yet? Of course not.

Did you read the minority opinion yet? And surely it wouldn't have been difficult to just answer the question about the researcher's apparent infallability - or that there is only one righteous expert position out there without assuming that everyone has to hold the same level of passion as you or be considered irrelevant. You chose to support your argument by degrading others.

In case you didn't notice, the reactions to those "6th grade level remarks" were pretty much expressed like a fifth grader.

I know plenty about the researcher and you are attempting semantic games to make yourself sound smart. All the your points above are 100% legit, but first one needs to actually read the papers, the lit, etc before attempting to then look into the finer issues. No sh*& Sherlock, journals are not perfect, etc, etc. I'm not one of your college freshmen, I have been publshed in per reviewed journals, published op eds n places like the Boston Globe on this very topic, etc, so your little dissertation above about how knowledgeable you are about the inner workings of the journals was just more hot air vs an attempt at relevant discussion. Now, Lott's background and CV if interested:

"Previously I held positions at the University of Chicago, Yale University, Stanford, UCLA, Wharton, and Rice and was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988 and 1989. I have published over 90 articles in academic journals. I received my Ph.D. in economics from UCLA in 1984."

Your own CV indicates that you've co-authored publications in peer-reviewed journals. Lab assistants can do that. Moreover, your lack of knowledge about what is constituted a "dissertation" or what is considered "hot air" in a written forum would justify my initial response. What are the qualifications for publishing an opinion in the Boston Globe? Maybe I missed the post where you indicated your peer-reviewed credits included research on this particular subject. If so, sorry.

I wasn't the one questioning someone else's command of the English language, Will. And obviously it would have been easier to write that little paragraph about Lott's background to add weight to his authority rather than engage in condescending rhetoric. Is the issue that your opinion must be considered completely authoritative? Or just that you advocate freedom only for others to agree with you and it makes your argument so much stronger if you attempt to degrade someone else?

Blogger: User Profile: John Lott

Now, if you do some searching, you can also find plenty of criticisms of Lott and his research, because, as you would expect, it's a highly contentious topic.

What a surprise. But those wouldn't have been accepted on this "discussion" forum as more than an opening for personal attacks.

Clearly, you overrate your importance, and perhaps the students you deal with look up to you, giving you a highly inflated sense of your importance and how much I, or anyone else, cares what increases credibility with you. Again, credible info was supplied. You generally ignored it in favor of making statements that were often difficult to read as English, and or simply made no sense.

Since you haven't read my own CV, or have any familiarity with my own work, you really wouldn't have any idea whether I "overrate (my) importance." Of course, let's not allow that little fact to get in the way of making claims about others, or consider that an indication of your own "highly inflated importance." You haven't indicated any training in my discipline which would grant you special understanding about anyone's importance. Instead, you assume that if you've decided something is "credible," that is the only answer or the only opinion worthy of consideration, and so it entitles you to respond in a personal or degrading manner.

We can (1) start over again with some on topic question (in English!) or thought from you regarding the actual topic, or (2) stop wasting each others time.

Originally Posted by kbm8795

I already indicated that I wasn't interested

Originally Posted by kbm8795

Ah...a second attempt to proclaim yourself the official arbiter of the English language, even if you have difficulty distinguishing between words used to describe oral communication versus written usage.

I already indicated that I wasn't interested - and that I can, using my obviously "overrated importance," read on my own. That was my signal that I was finished wasting my time. So enjoy singing to the choir.

The most interesting part is that I never had to express my own opinion on the subject to discover it had best be the same opinion as yours.