micro 0 #51 August 30, 2006 QuoteRe: John Lott's lawsuit: Scientific American Story Quote: "...a flurry of conference presentations and journal papers, some of which replicated his results and some of which did not." Re: the author of the book "Freakenomics": Quote: "Did he mean to imply that Lott falsified his results? 'No, I did not.'" Thus, his lawsuit to clear his reputation, which was impugned by the book, seems to have merit. If someone published a widely popular book that said that Professor Kallend doesn't know shit about physics or skydiving, I suspect you might be tempted to file a civil lawsuit too. Thanks for posting that, John. I hadn't taken the time to find that online yet. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #52 August 30, 2006 Quotepeace, bro. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #53 August 30, 2006 Quote Quote peace, bro. Smile thanks John. But, wait! I still have popcorn! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #54 August 30, 2006 QuoteQuote Quote peace, bro. Smile thanks John. But, wait! I still have popcorn! You can eat it while he and I have mad passionate make-up sex. I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #55 August 30, 2006 QuoteAs Kris told you, the Bill of Rights didn't give you that right. It guaranteed a right you already had, ensured that the new government would not try to take away that right and others. Actually, I never stated that the Bill of Rights "gave" the right. I did state that the second amendment "secured" the right. I do believe, however, that every person has the right to protect themself regardless where the right came from."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
StreetScooby 5 #56 August 31, 2006 Quote You can eat it while he and I have mad passionate make-up sex. The thought alone has me looking up my psychiatrist's number. LOL!! We are all engines of karma Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
micro 0 #57 August 31, 2006 QuoteQuote You can eat it while he and I have mad passionate make-up sex. The thought alone has me looking up my psychiatrist's number. LOL!! ... which has ME eating popcorn! I miss Lee. And JP. And Chris. And... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #58 August 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteAs Kris told you, the Bill of Rights didn't give you that right. It guaranteed a right you already had, ensured that the new government would not try to take away that right and others. Actually, I never stated that the Bill of Rights "gave" the right. I did state that the second amendment "secured" the right. I do believe, however, that every person has the right to protect themself regardless where the right came from. when you make a reference to 'priviledges' it was necessary to set the record straight. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #59 August 31, 2006 QuoteRe: John Lott's lawsuit: Scientific American Story Quote: "...a flurry of conference presentations and journal papers, some of which replicated his results and some of which did not." It's odd how the gun-o-phobes only mentioned the ones that did not replicate his results. Re: the author of the book "Freakenomics": Quote: "Did he mean to imply that Lott falsified his results? 'No, I did not.'" Thus, Lott's lawsuit to clear his reputation, which was impugned by the book, seems to have merit. If someone published a widely popular book that said that Professor Kallend doesn't know shit about physics, I suspect you too might be tempted to file a civil lawsuit for libel. You clearly missed the entire point of the SciAm article.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Samurai136 0 #60 August 31, 2006 QuoteYou clearly missed the entire point of the SciAm article. Was the point that it was Roe v Wade and an increase in abortions that lowered crime and not concealed carry permits? QuoteIn Freakonomics, Levitt proffered his own theory for the source of the 1990s crime decline--Roe v. Wade. According to Levitt, children born into impoverished and adverse environments are more likely to land in jail as adults. After Roe v. Wade, millions of poor single women had abortions instead of future potential criminals; 20 years later the set of potential offenders had shrunk, along with the crime rate. Levitt employed a comparative statistical analysis to show that the five states that legalized abortion at least two years before Roe v. Wade witnessed a crime decline earlier than the other 45 states. Further, those states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest fall in crime in the 1990s."Buttons aren't toys." - Trillian Ken Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #61 August 31, 2006 QuoteQuoteYou clearly missed the entire point of the SciAm article. Was the point that it was Roe v Wade and an increase in abortions that lowered crime and not concealed carry permits? QuoteIn Freakonomics, Levitt proffered his own theory for the source of the 1990s crime decline--Roe v. Wade. According to Levitt, children born into impoverished and adverse environments are more likely to land in jail as adults. After Roe v. Wade, millions of poor single women had abortions instead of future potential criminals; 20 years later the set of potential offenders had shrunk, along with the crime rate. Levitt employed a comparative statistical analysis to show that the five states that legalized abortion at least two years before Roe v. Wade witnessed a crime decline earlier than the other 45 states. Further, those states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest fall in crime in the 1990s. Not this time, but Lott has been involved in that debate too.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #62 August 31, 2006 QuoteParticularly telling is the graphic on page 8, which shows Concealed Carry law status by state as of the Summer of 2006. There are now only TWO states the do not allow concealed carry for law abiding citizens and only 8 other states that have restricive laws for such. That means there are 38 states that have shall-issue or do-issue laws on the books for their citizens. Not really on topic, but aren't we missing a couple of states there? 2+8+38=48. Is it not counting Hawaii and Alaska or something?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
