jcd11235

v. men·aced, men·ac·ing, men·ac·es v.tr. 1. To utter threats against. 2. To constitute a threat to; endanger. Clearly, it's a judgment call on the part of the individual. Using that definition, menacing behavior would constitute assault, not merely intent to assault. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Could you be any more vague? What makes behavior menacing without making it assault? Incidentally, if the "menacing" behavior doesn't qualify as assault, pulling and brandishing a firearm will in most US jurisdictions. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

One more time, in English, please? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If one is going to carry a gun for self defense, it would behoove that person to know the answer before they put themselves in a position to be at the mercy of lawyers and a jury. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Okay, feel free to answer the question that no one else has answered: What constitutes intent to assault? Once someone acts in such a manner that I feel threatened by them, they have already committed assault. If I pull a gun before they commit assault, I have pulled the gun before I feel threatened by them. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Right, that's the point I was making. Assault is pretty much the initial step in a situation that may (or may not) escalate to violence. So, it's nearly impossible to know someone has "intent to commit assault" before assault is committed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Brandish before the assault is committed, and you're the one committing assault unlawfully. Brandish during or afterwards, and you've increased your chances of being shot and/or killed. Sounds like a losing proposition to me. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In most places, those actions would be considered assault, not merely attempt to assault. Brandish a firearm before the assault is committed (or, in some circumstances, while/after it is committed), and suddenly, you're the one guilty of assault. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Intent to assault? What, exactly, is that? (I know what intent means. I'm still waiting for someone to post the definition of assault.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Wouldn't brandishing a firearm be considered assault in many cases? Not if it was done by a legal carrier to prevent an assault. In that case, no shooting occurs, so the data is excluded from the study. In the case that the weapon is legally brandished, and then a shooting does occur--I think Bill is saying that's the excluded 1.5% of incidents. Perhaps you should clarify what you are considering to be assault. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Wouldn't brandishing a firearm be considered assault in many cases? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Based on what data do you draw such a conclusion? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm sure lots of people will jump to that same conclusion upon finding that the study doesn't draw conclusions that coincide with their own personal beliefs. That doesn't make them right. I've covered why it's junk. Didn't see any replies from you on that. Sorry. I wanted to see how many people would make such a claim without having actually seen the study. There certainly wasn't a shortage of such people! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Or, a lack of training with the guns contributed to the shootings/deaths. There are lots of possible explanations. That the scope of this particular study doesn't include every single explanation for the statistical results doesn't make the study invalid or meaningless. I'm sure lots of people will jump to that same conclusion upon finding that the study doesn't draw conclusions that coincide with their own personal beliefs. That doesn't make them right. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It's useful to only draw proper conclusions from the data. If one wants to analyze the effects of CCW permits, then a study should be designed for that purpose. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't understand your question. Without one or the other what? Without the intervention of one superpower, would the actions of the other have been desirable? Or do we only like the one action because it balances the other? Would we have been better off with neither? With the support of one superpower (which was an example of good foreign policy), the actions of the other were undesirable. Without the interventions of the US, the support of the USSR would have been desirable. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I fail to see how that is even relevant when studying the effects of carrying guns and not the effects of having a CCW permit. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I don't understand your question. Without one or the other what? Clearly, we're not talking about two wrongs making a right, since I gave one example of good foreign policy and one example of bad foreign policy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

One example of good foreign policy that comes to mind is the USSR's support of Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. Unfortunately, it was countered by an ill advised foreign policy on the part of the US, supporting the mujahideen groups. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf? No. I think the Congressman/woman and Representative SHOULD know what his/her constituents think. But major lobbying efforts are not that. An individual writing his/her Congressmen is an example of lobbying, making that individual a lobbyist, something you previously stated you don't really like. I want the politicians to know the people that they represent. Lobbyist are both a sub culture of that population and a also a larger group of those NOT represented by that politician. For example: Tammy Baldwin is a Representative in the U.S. House of Representatives for WI. She represents the PEOPLE of Wisconsin. Those that want firearms rights and those that don't. The NRA contains a SUBGROUP of that population The NRA ALSO is a MUCH LARGER demographic that also contains NON-Wisconsin residents. Representative Baldwin should know HER constituents. There is nothing that stops anyone from lobbying a Congressperson who does not directly represent that person or that person's state. In fact, it might be a useful thing to do. For example, if I live in Florida, but no one from Florida is on a Congressional committee that deals with an issue that is important to me, it behooves me to contact the members of that committee with my lobbying efforts even though they are not from my state. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

US state action played a major role in the creation and rise of al Qaeda. That doesn't change the fact that they are a non-state actor, as are many insurgent groups waging war in various places in the world. Of course, we'll never know how many non-state actors aren't waging war, due to policies and actions of state actors. We're almost in agreement here. I think US foreign policy has been a disaster since 1945, with a massively negative net effect on the overall welfare of the world and a large contribution to violence suffered by individuals around the world. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf? No. I think the Congressman/woman and Representative SHOULD know what his/her constituents think. But major lobbying efforts are not that. An individual writing his/her Congressmen is an example of lobbying, making that individual a lobbyist, something you previously stated you don't really like. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Since there seems to be an increasing tendency for some of the major parties in today's wars to not be state actors (e.g. al Qaeda), I fail to see how your proposed solution would offer any real benefit. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you have a problem with an individual writing his Congressman and/or Senators on his/her own behalf? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

So by that statement, if I were to list 25 articles by some author printed by the NRA... YOU will admit that that is indicative of an area of expertise for that author? You would disagree with the statement that he/she had bias? Being listed on the Web site of F.I.C.A.P. does not imply that an article/study was written for F.I.C.A.P. ok... I corrected it. So would the above statement be correct? It might be indicative of that, especially if the 25 articles/studies have been published in credible peer reviewed journals. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!