|
|
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, the obvious source is by Kellerman and Reay: "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60. Gun apologists cite poor methodology (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) You are noting the difference between the "holding" in a decision, and what is termed "obiter dictum." ob·i·ter dic·tum, pl. ob·i·ter dic·ta. 1. an incidental or passing remark, opinion, etc. 2. Law. an incidental or supplementary opinion by a (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Can we amend that rule so that the first mention of "Big Brother," "jackbooted thugs," or "brave new world" in any non-literary context is likewise a forfeiture? Dave! (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| With every gun debate I see/read, it seems to me more people would rather live unarmed. I seems likely to me that, within my lifetime, guns will be outlawed from private citizens. Why do I think this likely? Because I just don't see enough people (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) But we need guns to prevent crime, right? Oh, wait... According to (URL)Most people took multiple precautions during the last year to protect (...) So it's a good thing we need to protect ourselves from the Guvmint--otherwise we wouldn't have (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) We don't have to look much further than the last U.S. Presidential election to find confirmation in that! (...) Rule Number 1 of political debates: He Who Mentions Hitler First Loses! :-) Bruce (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) <snip> (...) Yes, it is an eventuality. History repeats itself. Slavery in America would have been far different (and purhaps nonexistent) had the Africans been armed. The Jews may have avoided the Holocaust. An entire nation may not have been (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) This avoids Dave!'s point: the "liberal media" mantra is just that. It's a cheap label that intends to dismiss criticism of anything conservatives support as biased. Some, of course, is biased in the liberal direction. But some is biased in (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Strange that you view that as an eventuality rather than a possibility. I prefer life in a society where we are able to take the decision to live largely without guns. Earlier, somebody said they needed a gun for protection from the big bad (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | | | Re: An armed society...
|
| Hi everyone, Just an aside: No matter how well-written a .o-t.debate post is, is it really appropriate to go about highlighting it for the front page, given the number of people who studiously avoid and abhor this forum? (Yes, I know that 9/11 was (...) (23 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
|
