Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

Page 3 of 13  
"J. Clarke" wrote:

The basic statement was that by imposing a significant increase in the sales/use tax it would reduce the available market.
Your failure to understand that sounds like a personal problem.
Perhaps you might want to try Econ 101 to resolve.
Trying to introduce extraneous intellectual bullshit not withstanding, the base statement still stands.
I'm out of here.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

You have not demonstrated that "reducing the available market" will accomplish any desirable societal objective.

Oh, if it were only so.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:02:30 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

Typical of legitimate participants, Not so with respect to the criminal element.

Alarmists like to use the phrase "Saturday night specials", because it stirs something up within them, but what in the hell is that name supposed to mean - and more importantly, what in the hell is it supposed to mean in the context of this discussion? Why introduce a red herring that has nothing at all to do with the matter at hand?
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

"Saturday night specials": AKA: Typically low cost, low quality hand gun.
Beyond that, you are on your own.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:46:43 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

I know what a Saturday Night Special is - what I am asking is why you introduced that into this thread? SNS's have nothing to do with the discussion that preceeded your introduction of them.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

An example of a market segment that would be significantly impacted by a large increase in ammunition costs.
Nothing sinister.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:13:20 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

Not at all impacted. They aren't impacted by the price of guns today - they don't go to Gander Mountain to buy their guns and ammo. They buy them on the street. Price goes up? Sell more drugs.
The whole point is that you can't combat the criminal element with tactics that cost the law abiding elements of society. Those guys aren't affected by prices, inconveniences, etc.
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Have you considered submitting your ideas to Bill Bratton here in L/A?
As L/A's top cop, he just might be interested.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 03:06:12 GMT, Lew Hodgett cast forth these pearls of wisdom...:

I'm sure he knows well that raising the price of ammo and guns does little to impact the criminal element. It seems only you think it will. The cops and the politicians like to push this stuff because it gets them feel good points with the non-thinkers out there in public land who feel the just have to see something done - anything...
--

-Mike-
snipped-for-privacy@alltel.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Mike Marlow" wrote:

Let's agree to disagree and call it a day.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stuart wrote:

... and from what I have read, you are really at the mercy of the thugs. Honest citizens cannot be armed and cannot even defend themselves without being prosecuted, while the thugs don't get very heavy sentences.
A study of countries/states/cities with restrictive gun laws has shown that crime gets worse in those places. Places with concealed carry and less restrictive gun laws tend to have lower crime rates.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct.
--
Stuart Winsor

Don't miss the Risc OS Christmas show
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a pretty broad statement, how about a few stats to back it up? And if it is true, I'd wonder how similar stats for Canada would correlate to the US ones?
Even though every shooting in Toronto, Canada gets great press, the statistics released by the police definitely show that the crime rate is going down every year. It only sounds worse because of the sensation of crimes done by the press.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Several cites: The following is a synopsis of the FBI report, if you don't like the source, you can peruse the FBI report yourself. <http://www.nraila.org/legislation/read.aspx?idA81 Key summary:"Right-to-Carry states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country with total violent crime lower by 24 percent, murder by 28 percent, robbery by 50 percent, and aggravated assault by 11 percent. "
Effect of gun laws in England and the idea that people should not protect themselves or others, they should rely upon society to protect them: <http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html

2006 piece citing some Canadian information <http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/lemieux1.html
Those were few that were found in a few minutes of looking
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I certainly don't like the source. The NRA? An organzation whose sole purpose is the right to bear arm. Decidedly one sided point of view.

Another dubious point of view from an individual. How about some unbiased national statistics?

Same comment as above. The personal view of a single individual who has set up a website for blogging his opinion.
Sorry Mark, the above sources only make one question it further. I'll have a look around for some statistics that project a more unbiased and widely studied point of view.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

While I certainly agree that they have a one-sided point of view, and I will admit that I have often pointed out biased sources by others in various discussions, the issue here was not the point of view expressed, but the statistics cited. In this case, the statistics can be pretty well relied upon to be what is in the FBI report (I just wasn't going to go digging for that report). One thing regarding NRA statistics -- you can pretty well be sure they are correct because the other side spends a great deal of time fact-checking anything the NRA cites or states. If the NRA cites were off by a single digit, the media would be all over them for making up facts. The media treatment of the NRA is quite unlike the media's treatment of other groups with whose views the media agrees, those groups can make up whatever figures they like (e.g. # of homeless, degrees of global warming, # of people hungry or impoverished, dangers of eating certain types of food, etc.) with little or no fear of being called out on it.

Don't disagree that parts of this are an opinion piece, however, the history and statistics cited are consistent with historical events and other news reports.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Give it up, Mark. You are looking silly now. You can no longer defend that cluster-flub you're been rooting for. Even YOU can see it was the absolute worst presidency in US history.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Robatoy" wrote

I truly do not have a dog in the fight, but I would caution to let history decide that. The media, providing the masses the information upon which the judgment is currently based, is as equally despicable as any politician.
And "the masses" are basically responsible for the very post that started this thread.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 10/22/08
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hell, even Carter got a few things right....even though I can't come up with anything just now...NIXON did a few things.... okay..can't think of anything there either... . . . I guess if we wait long enough, Bush43 did something right...but it's hard to imagine what that could have been....
I'm sorry, but I'm still in awe of Reagan.... yea yea yea.. he wasn't perfect either... but he was COOL!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.