Details » The Locker Room

- Url: http://thelockerroom.informe.com/
- Category: Forum Services
- Description: A place to get away
- Members: 28
- Created On: Feb 8, 2007
- Posts: 1
- Hits: 3931
- Rating: 

Post your rating:
- Rating:          
- Comment:

- Verification Image:
- Verification Code:
 


User Comments:
1. | Jun 27, 2014
....Then he has even less excuse for wrinitg second rate rubbish with little apparent objective review of source material that would get a first year journalism cadet student a terse "please explain" from their lecturer, and a boot in the backside from their editor.
2. | Nov 17, 2013
PART 2 (continued from first post)By definition, coceealnd carry means that those who would do you harm do not know if you have the means to defend yourself. Not knowing is a potential deterrent. However, positively identifying that the risk does ACTUALLY exist would seem to be an inherently better deterrent.In your Israeli example, as you state, the terrorist has the option to wait, or kill you first. However, if he is hellbent on carrying out his attack then you will likely die in any scenario whether your firearm is displayed or coceealnd, it will just be delayed if coceealnd.Should he decide to wait, you have saved your life, as well as anyone with your party. Carrying a firearm is an individual responsibility that should not be taken lightly. While open carry may prevent the victimization of others, it is meant to prevent the victimization of myself and my loved ones first. I utterly refuse to be held accountable for 'not preventing' a crime for those who choose not to take prudent steps for their family's security. The carrier's responsibilities should not be confused with the responsibilities of law enforcement.As a side not, I generally do not open carry, and when I do it is not to make a statement. If making a statement is your only reasoning, then you have missed the boat. The primary reason I conceal is to keep from dealing with people who ask a myriad of questions when I am out and about.I open carry when concealing the firearm is not practical or when my inclination would be to leave the firearm at home because concealing would be a major hassle. If it's gotten to that point, in my opinion, having a firearm carried openly is far better than having it in the safe. There are also situations where quick access to my firearm would be severely compromised by concealing. In that case, why bother carrying coceealnd if you can't get to it! A good example is when driving a car, with seatbelt on, with a coceealnd firearm. Access is much slower than openly carrying as the seatbelt will not obstruct access. There are plenty of other examples as well.
3. | Nov 15, 2013
PART 2 (continued from first post)By definition, coeecalnd carry means that those who would do you harm do not know if you have the means to defend yourself. Not knowing is a potential deterrent. However, positively identifying that the risk does ACTUALLY exist would seem to be an inherently better deterrent.In your Israeli example, as you state, the terrorist has the option to wait, or kill you first. However, if he is hellbent on carrying out his attack then you will likely die in any scenario whether your firearm is displayed or coeecalnd, it will just be delayed if coeecalnd.Should he decide to wait, you have saved your life, as well as anyone with your party. Carrying a firearm is an individual responsibility that should not be taken lightly. While open carry may prevent the victimization of others, it is meant to prevent the victimization of myself and my loved ones first. I utterly refuse to be held accountable for 'not preventing' a crime for those who choose not to take prudent steps for their family's security. The carrier's responsibilities should not be confused with the responsibilities of law enforcement.As a side not, I generally do not open carry, and when I do it is not to make a statement. If making a statement is your only reasoning, then you have missed the boat. The primary reason I conceal is to keep from dealing with people who ask a myriad of questions when I am out and about.I open carry when concealing the firearm is not practical or when my inclination would be to leave the firearm at home because concealing would be a major hassle. If it's gotten to that point, in my opinion, having a firearm carried openly is far better than having it in the safe. There are also situations where quick access to my firearm would be severely compromised by concealing. In that case, why bother carrying coeecalnd if you can't get to it! A good example is when driving a car, with seatbelt on, with a coeecalnd firearm. Access is much slower than openly carrying as the seatbelt will not obstruct access. There are plenty of other examples as well.
4. | Nov 11, 2013
contdOf course the death patnley deters. A review of the debate.Dudley Sharp 1) Anti death patnley folks say that the burden of proof is on those who say that the death patnley deters. Untrue. It is a rational truism that all potential negative outcomes deter some - there is no exception. It is the burden of death patnley opponents to prove that the death patnley, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the only prospect of a negative outcome that deters none. They cannot. 2) There have been 28 recent studies finding for death patnley deterrence. A few of those have been criticized. The criticism has, itself been rebutted and/or the criticism doesn't negate no. 1 or nos. 3-10. 3) No deterrence study finds that the death patnley deters none. They cannot. Anti death patnley columnists Eric Zorn of the Chicago Tribune states, "No one argues that the death patnley deters none." Yes, some do, But Zorn is correct, the issue is not "Does the death patnley deter?". It does. The only issue is to what degree. 4) About 99% of those murderers who are subject to the death patnley do everything they can to receive a lesser sentence, in pre trial, plea bargains, trial, in appeals and in clemency/commutation proceedings. Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life. No surprise. Would a more rational group, those who choose not to murder, also share in that overwhelming fear of death and be deterred by the prospects of execution? Of course. 5) There are a number of known cases of individual deterrence, those potential murderers who have stated that they were prevented from committing murder because of their fear of the death patnley. Individual deterrence exists. 6) General deterrence exists because individual deterrence cannot exist without it. 7) Even the dean of anti death patnley academics, Hugo Adam Bedau, agrees that the death patnley deters .. . but he doesn't believe it deters more than a life sentence. Nos. 4-6 and 10 provide anecdotal and rational evidence that the death patnley is a greater deterrent than a life sentence. In addition, the 28 studies finding for deterrence, find that the death patnley is an enhanced deterrent over a life sentence. 8) All criminal sanctions deter. If you doubt that, what do you think would happen if we ended all criminal sanctions? No rational person has any doubt. Some would have us, irrationally, believe that the most severe sanction, execution, is the only sanction which doesn't deter. 9) If we execute and there is no deterrence, we have justly punished a murderer and have prevented that murderer from ever harming/murdering, again. If we execute and there is deterrence, we have those benefits, plus we have spared more innocent lives. If we don't execute and there is deterrence, we have spared murderers at the cost of more innocent deaths. 10) Overwhelmingly, people prefer life over death and fear death more than life. "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science
5. | Nov 4, 2013
Nov15 insane! best day on earth!would rlaley dig to do this more than once a month.especially mt. zion, those guys made my day very very irie street scene, city love and corner cafe,thank you so much!
6. | Nov 1, 2013
I'd be interested to hear more on the 1760s ascpet, John, if you run across anything. I can think of a few things going on at the time all over Europe, but not what would have affected Russia in particular.It would be interesting to know if there are exact dates to these cases: do they start in a trickle and then cluster? Does one court case lead to a dozen copycats? It might be an interesting question of whether this was a broader social/economic/political development, or whether it burst out as a kind of legal fad.Allison, that statement by Kliuchevsky would boggle me too. I'm not sure what he thought the larger world was made up of, or what the individual consciousness reflected, if not the larger social world!
7. | Oct 17, 2013
etot kurginyan sodlat rothschildov! ego tozhe raskrutshiwaut w Rossii dlja psewdosozialisma po trotskomu (nowi tolpolitarism) i raswala Rossii (revoluzia kak eto uzhe bilo) Info pro kurginyana na KPE.  ru !!!Dmitri Slawoljubov ..wash bibleiski projekt w rasnowidnoi forme skoro prowaliza i washa psewdowlast (kapitalism, pwsewdosozialism gde toka elita rulit a ne narod..) isbrannix balnix skoro bolshe nebudet