Community > Posts By > msharmony

 
msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:55 PM
bushido asked :How come my gun has never done this?

this is EXACTLY my point

your opinion that guns keep you safe are based upon YOUR personal experience, and unless and until your gun DID become the center of some accidental death,, you wouldnt be swayed to believe otherwise

I have been assaulted twice, and lived to tell about it, no gun was present (Either on the perp or myself) and until or unless that were to change I have no PERSONAL motivation to be swayed from my belief that Im safe enough without one,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:27 PM

I guess I'm not understanding the whole concept of what is going on with it.
I hear people arguing the point that it should be free. If that's the case I ask why?
Then I also hear people talking about it should be available to women.
I wasn't aware that there are women who can't obtain it. Can't they get a prescription from a doctor?
And I would also like to know if women can get it for free then why. Ant men get free condoms?



in general

YES< men and women can get 'free' contraception (condoms and pills) depending upon their income level by going to various clinics who supply such income based assistance

generally, men and women who should be able to 'afford' it within their own income will have to pay for it

a male can get a box of about 12 for 9 dollars , or a little under a dollar a piece

less than what they pay for those daily cigarettes, or cups of coffee , or soft drinks.....MOST can afford this

the pill, however, is a prescription med that one must go through the medical profession to receive and that too is usually income based,,,but ranges from 15-50 bucks a month, or fifty cents to 1.75 per day


less than those junk food items most eat daily,

MOST can probably afford this as well

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:21 PM
murder is a legal term, it refers to UNLAWFUL killing,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:20 PM
murder is a legal term, it refers to UNLAWFUL killing,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:18 PM

In 2009 America's crime rate was roughly the same as in 1968, with the homicide rate being at its lowest level since 1964. Overall, the national crime rate was 3466 crimes per 100,000 residents, down from 3680 crimes per 100,000 residents forty years earlier in 1969 (-9.4%).[1]

The likelihood of committing and falling victim to crime also depends on several demographic characteristics, as well as location of the population. Overall, men, minorities, the young, and those in financially less favorable positions are more likely to be crime victims, as well as commit crimes.[2] Crime in the US is also concentrated in certain areas.

It is quite common for crime in American cities to be highly concentrated in a few, often economically disadvantaged areas. For example, San Mateo County, California had a population of approximately 707,000 and 17 homicides in 2001. Six of these 17 homicides took place in poor, largely Black and Hispanic East Palo Alto, which had a population of roughly 30,000. So, while East Palo Alto accounted for a mere 4.2% of the population, about one-third of the homicides took place there.[3] According to the FBI, in 2008 14,180 people were murdered in America.[4]


As shown in the charts above, reported violent crime nationwide nearly quadrupled between 1960 and its peak in 1991. Property crime more than doubled over the same period. Since 1993, crime has declined steeply. Several theories have been proposed to explain the cause.

One hypothesis suggests a causal link between legalized abortion and the drop in crime during the 1990s.[6]
Another hypothesis suggests reduced lead exposure as the cause; Scholar Mark A.R. Kleiman writes: "Given the decrease in lead exposure among children since the 1980s and the estimated effects of lead on crime, reduced lead exposure could easily explain a very large proportion—certainly more than half—of the crime decrease of the 1994-2004 period. A careful statistical study relating local changes in lead exposure to local crime rates estimates the fraction of the crime decline due to lead reduction as greater than 90 percent. [7]
Another correlation exists between the number of people who defended a violent attach with a defensive firearm and the reduction in crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
Lots of information here, much of it very disturbing.

Prison statistics
Main article: Incarceration in the United States
A map of US states according to number of incarcerated individuals per population of 100,000 in 2008.[17]

Compared with other countries, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world. As of 2006, a record 7 million people were behind bars, on probation or on parole, of which 2.2 million were incarcerated. The People's Republic of China ranks second with 1.5 million. The United States has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's incarcerated population.[18][dated info]

In terms of federal prison, 57% of those incarcerated were sentenced for drug offenses.


It is all connected, but what we do with the information is what is important.


correlations can be direct of indirect,,,,there are too many factors to 'crime' to try to discuss one element as an exclusively significant factor

criminals are predominately poor, so there is an indirect correlation to crime and being 'poor',, but does that mean poverty itself leads to crime?

probably not, because asian countries have very high poverty with lower crime?

in the years discussed above, MANY things in our political and social landscape changed which could then be said to CORRELATE to the crime rates,, but whether they can be proven to have a CAUSAL relation is a totally different story,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:13 PM



These shootings are so sad to hear about. I am glad we have very few here but we aren't allowed to carry guns so I suspect that curbs it somewhat.


Must be nice. Here the Libtards wanna force their anti gun BS on everyone and it only take guns away from innocent people and puts them in the criminals hands.


Here, they make it difficult for anyone to get any kind of weapon. Our police have enough to deal with and don't need people going off half-cocked with weapons on them. We had some shootings with Asian gangs but even that has gone down and our general crime rate has gone down. It was put to a vote about people carrying concealed weapons but the majority of the popluation did not want it. Fact is though; criminals will always find a way to obtain guns whether our law is in place or not.



thats why its crime, because criminals dont care about laws

and the system tries to put away those who dont care about laws, the best way they have of identifying them is by seeing who DOESNT FOLLOW Them,....lol


I mean, we could do away with any laws, if we are so concerned that the laws are not gonna stop 'criminals',,,,,lol

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:11 PM





You believe women who use birth control for any reason are sluts? Did you even pay attention to Sandra Fluke's story, or are you assuming Rush is giving you all the info you need?


Doesn't matter. Someone or company shouldn't be forced to provide birth control for a woman if it's against their values, religion or beliefs.


You made the comment about how she should keep her legs closed. Do you realize she was talking about using birth control for a medical reason? What does that have to do with keeping her legs closed?

You also didn't answer the question. Do you believe women who use birth control for any reason are sluts?

What medical reasons do women use birth control for?



Oral contraceptives have been shown to be very effective at shrinking ovarian cysts. They are also used in the treatment of ovarian cancers.

Besides, the testimony Fluke wanted to give to Congress was about a friend of hers who was a lesbian who had these cysts and had a prescription from a duly certified physician for this course of treatment.

A couple of sponsors have already said they are dropping advertising over this. This may just be Limbaugh's Waterloo-- like Rush and his little drug problem, Napoleon was on the comeback trail when the Battle of Waterloo ended his military career.

It's especially ironic that Limbaugh himself was caught with Viagra for which he didn't have a prescription while going on a vacation.

-Kerry O.





Rush is Rush, infamous for juvenile name calling and unsubstantiated accusations,,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:08 PM



I don't make the laws; I just abide by them. I would never keep a gun in my house or on me. I have a better chance of being killed in an accident than of being shot. JMO
The chances of something happening to you are exactly 0 until they happen then its %100. (Its a saying that illustrates how useless statistics are if you dont heed the warnings no matter how minute)

Do you look both ways before crossing the street, I mean statistically you are unlikely to get hit.

Do you think to yourself when its lighting outside, hey maybe I better stay inside? Maybe I better stop cleaning the pool?

Do you lock your doors?

Smoke detectors?

Do you use poisonous cleaning products? Why? Getting ecoli in a deathly concentration is unlikely to happen.

Do you do any one of a million things that remove the tiny chances of a bad thing happening, or making it so if it does happen you are prepared?

The honest answer to this is of course! We all do, its just that guns are scary, and people avoid what they are uncomfortable around and they fear. It takes nerve to overcome fear. It takes capability to tame a dangerous thing.

When I was 15 I was scared of driving on narrow roads at speeds over 45 mph becuase I was not certain of my own skill. More people die of car accidents than all other dangerous activities combined, but no one thinks to themselves . . . hey I am going to stop driving, or hey we should ban this dangerous tool.

Its irrational.

The only reason not to be armed is if you do not trust yourself emotionally to handle that responsibility, its my opinion if this is true you shouldn't drive either.




its not JUST that guns are scary, its that BULLETS from guns can END LIVES,,,,

unlike a lock on a door, or looking before crossing, or any of the other comparisons made,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:06 PM



I don't make the laws; I just abide by them. I would never keep a gun in my house or on me. I have a better chance of being killed in an accident than of being shot. JMO
The chances of something happening to you are exactly 0 until they happen then its %100. (Its a saying that illustrates how useless statistics are if you dont heed the warnings no matter how minute)

Do you look both ways before crossing the street, I mean statistically you are unlikely to get hit.

Do you think to yourself when its lighting outside, hey maybe I better stay inside? Maybe I better stop cleaning the pool?

Do you lock your doors?

Smoke detectors?

Do you use poisonous cleaning products? Why? Getting ecoli in a deathly concentration is unlikely to happen.

Do you do any one of a million things that remove the tiny chances of a bad thing happening, or making it so if it does happen you are prepared?

The honest answer to this is of course! We all do, its just that guns are scary, and people avoid what they are uncomfortable around and they fear. It takes nerve to overcome fear. It takes capability to tame a dangerous thing.

When I was 15 I was scared of driving on narrow roads at speeds over 45 mph becuase I was not certain of my own skill. More people die of car accidents than all other dangerous activities combined, but no one thinks to themselves . . . hey I am going to stop driving, or hey we should ban this dangerous tool.

Its irrational.

The only reason not to be armed is if you do not trust yourself emotionally to handle that responsibility, its my opinion if this is true you shouldn't drive either.





or if you trust your judgment well enough to take precautions against dangerous situations and dont feel a NEED for a gun

and if you happen to use logic and think about how much those with guns have actually been SAVED by that ownership as opposed to how much those who never owned guns have never needed to be

or how much those with guns have had those guns ACCIDENTALLY harm others compared to those who never owned a gun,,,

the latter, OBLITERATES, the former numerically and statistically,,, so I will take my rather significantly high chances,,,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 06:03 PM


my love is unconditional, and not physical

it matters not and is defined not by how close a proximity I keep to the loved or how entertwined our life is,, If I love you, I always love you

even if I dont wish to share a life with you
even if I dont even want to talk to you very often,,,


msharmony, there you go again, saying something that makes me more attracted to you. Being someone's mommy or daddy definitely brings out the love in a person.



blushing

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 01:37 PM

These shootings are so sad to hear about. I am glad we have very few here but we aren't allowed to carry guns so I suspect that curbs it somewhat.



culture makes a big difference

how we are taught to view human life vs possessions etc,,,makes a big difference

how 'individualistic' our culture is as opposed to 'communal' makes a big difference

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 01:36 PM
my love is unconditional, and not physical

it matters not and is defined not by how close a proximity I keep to the loved or how entertwined our life is,, If I love you, I always love you

even if I dont wish to share a life with you
even if I dont even want to talk to you very often,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 01:33 PM
1. Im not trying to disarm anyone and dont support laws that ban guns altoghether, anymore than I would support banning cars because of accidents.

2. I am in support of regulations and applications of common sense being applied to 'tools' of death, much like they are to vehicles, so that those who own them are vetted in some way to DIMINISH the odds that wreckless and dangerous usage will occur.

3. I have already posted a passage from a site supporting my opinion, as you (as I predicted) did as well, Im not interesting in a tit for tat of studies and information that just backs up our opinions,,,,Im sure there is some logic to most anything either of us posts,,,

4. It just comes down to personal bias, and the fact that owning a gun or any such potentially (and by potential, I mean the EASE By which something can cause death accidentally) dangerous tools is a big responsibility.

we will disagree all day long about how that responsibility should be viewed in terms of public safety or how the regulations should or should not be instituted for the purpose of attempting to make things safer, even knowing they will never be COMPLETELY safe.

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 12:03 PM

on the one hand, it would be easier for the justice system to round them up because they would have no 'legal' justification for such a deadly weapon
This is not even an option in a free society with the constitutional protections of the 4th amendment so unless you favor completely removing any and all personal freedoms this shouldn't even be a consideration.

There are states in which stronger laws, similar to what you seem to suggesst, exist and the rate of violent crime has only increased.

Here is the reality.

If your business is crime you have an overwhelming incentive to own a firearm. If we could place a number to this level of need it would be orders of magnitude higher than a peaceful LAC who only desires to use a hand gun for recreation and personal defense.

What does this mean in practical terms. It means that any law that makes getting a firearm more difficult will exponentially effect the LAC's decision to purchase the firearm vs the criminal. At almost any cost the criminal will get a firearm. Usually by trading drugs or other hi value items often stolen in the pursuit of the crime in question. The street value of firearms is often 2-3 times that of the retail value and yet they still purchase them without hesitation.

Given the numbers of crimes that are thwarted with legal firearms any move to restrict legal access to firearms is a move that would harm far more than it could possibly help.



I think this

' It means that any law that makes getting a firearm more difficult will exponentially effect the LAC's decision to purchase the firearm vs the criminal' is a huge assumption

after all , if that LAC truly feels they are living in such a jungle, taking some effort to protect themself (including filling paperwork and waiting for the gun) would be worth it to them,, wouldnt it?



and this

"Given the numbers of crimes that are thwarted with legal firearms any move to restrict legal access to firearms is a move that would harm far more than it could possibly help."

is also a huge assumption,, words like 'any, all', usually indicate a huge assumption being made,,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 11:53 AM



If that is the case; why bother to be in a relationship? If I am okay with social and financial status and seems like a waste of time to be with anyone


Because we enjoy the feeling of being in a relationship with someone we love and we have to be there before we know if they love us back....which is the goal of any healthy romantic relationship.

...Or for sex?


Yeah; I am thinking more the latter as in sex. You can be in any type of relationship where someone is there for you and loves you but it doesn't have to be romantic. I was just saying that if you loved someone unconditionally; you would stay. You wouldn't look at it as a sentence or being condemned; you would look at it as staying for the sake of love. I am just playing devil's advocate. I hear countless times about how back in the days that people stayed together no matter what. I watched in horror as my mom had the crap beat out of her every day; but she stayed for love.



I think thats a skewed view of love

we are also to love ourself , so as not to willingly put ourself in harms way


I think its sometimes better to love from a distance than to try to stay connected for the sake of 'love'

but I do think those times are the rarity and most people are breaking up because they never truly 'loved' each other in the first place,,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 11:45 AM

You're wrong. A nation of morons? I think not. A few bad apples, yes, but...Michael Jackson, Whitnet Houston, Lady Ga-Ga...Elvis...the list goes on. America is creative. When was the last time you watch some Chinese perform sing from the heart and make you want to dance the night away with the sound of their soul?



actually, there are many many korean acts who perform soul music,,,my teens have turned me on to some of them


and they move me the same as any other soulful artist,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 11:42 AM

I think between these two studies you get a fairly unbiased idea of hand firearm defensive usage and the positive impact that usage has for the victims.

Self-protection

Between 1987 and 1990, David McDowall found that guns were used in defense during a crime incident 64,615 times annually.[62] This equates to two times out of 1,000 incidents (0.2%) that occurred in this time frame.[62] For violent crimes (assault, robbery, and rape), guns were used 0.83% of the time in self-defense.[62] Of the times that guns were used in self-defense, 71% of the crimes were committed by strangers, with the rest of the incidents evenly divided between offenders that were acquaintances or persons well-known to the victim.[62] Of all incidents where a gun was used for self-defense, victims shot at the offender 28% of the time.[62] In 20% of the self-defense incidents, the guns were used by police officers.[62] During this same time period, 1987 and 1990, there were 46,319 gun homicides,[63] and the National Crime Victimization Survey estimates that 2,628,532 nonfatal crimes involving guns occurred.[62]

The findings of the McDowall's study for the American Journal of Public Health contrast with the findings of a 1993 study by Gary Kleck, who finds that as many as 2.45 million crimes are thwarted each year in the United States, and in most cases, the potential victim never fires a shot in these cases where firearms are used constructively for self-protection.[64] The results of the Kleck studies have been cited many times in scholarly and popular media.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

McDowall cites methodological issues with the Kleck studies, stating that Kleck used a very small sample size and did not confine self-defense to attempted victimizations where physical attacks had already commenced.[62] The former criticism, however, is inaccurate — Kleck's survey with Marc Gertz in fact used the largest sample size of any survey that ever asked respondents about defensive gun use — 4,977 cases, far more than is typical in national surveys.[72] A study of gun use in the 1990s, by David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, found that criminal use of guns is far more common than self-defense use of guns.[73] By the Kleck study, however, most successful preventions of victimizations are accomplished without a shot being fired, which are not counted as a self-defense firearm usage by either the Hemenway or McDowall studies.[62][64][73] Hemenway, however, also argues that the Kleck figure is inconsistent with other known statistics for crime, citing that Kleck's figures apparently show that guns are many times more often used for self-defense in burglaries, than there are incidents of bulgaries of properties containing gun owners with awake occupants.[74] Hemenway concludes that under reasonable assumptions of random errors in sampling, because of the rarity of the event, the 2.5 million figure should be considered only as the top end of a 0-2.5 million confidence interval, suggesting a highly unreliable result that is likely a great overestimate, with the true figure at least 10 times less.
Now just imagine if the criminals were the only ones with guns.



on the one hand, it would be easier for the justice system to round them up because they would have no 'legal' justification for such a deadly weapon

on the other hand, it would put 'law abiding' citizens as walking targets unless such a round up was completed

but, on the side of common sense, I Think some BALANCE in the middle of the two extremes is obtainable, by merely REGULATING And Using precaution concerning WHO owns those 'legal' firearms and what type of firearms they are,,,

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 11:40 AM



If love was unconditional; why are there divorces or break ups? If someone cheats on you; then why leave them if your love is unconditional? The condition is you love them and they don't cheat on you. How about when someone abuses you, neglects you, or doesn't spend time with you? Are you still going to love then unconditionally? If so, then why break it off with them? How about kids? An example is your loving teenager or even adult kids murders the love of your life. But what the heck; you still love the that child. After all its just a murder. Sorry, I am having a hard time digesting that. I love my brother and the condition I set is he talks to me on the phone once in a while or we have coffee. Yes, small conditions but conditions none the less. I would not love anyone without some conditions in place as I am not a fool. The conditions don't have to be materialistic; the person doesn't even have to say they love me but I do expect them to acknowledge the existence of me; that is my condition. I may not be romantic but I am practical.


Love is a feeling, not a condemnation, or a contract, or a prison sentence. You can leave a bad person you love.


Why leave them if your love is unconditional? Wouldn't you want to stay with them no matter what they did? Isn't that the premise of unconditional love; no conditions?



no, love is how you FEEL about someone

you leave when you are in danger, regardless of what other things you are feeling

you leave when something is not good for you, because you also LOVE YOURSELF, regardless of how you feel about the other person

this doesnt stop you loving them though

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 11:39 AM



maybe not to the rapists family

Ive been the victim, and I wouldnt want that person dead for it,,,
I am glad I dont know you personally or Id feel compelled to shake you when you say things like this.

There is no guarantee your rapist wont just slit your throat. Stopping someone from attacking you is stopping them from the violent possibility of your death.

msharmony it sounds like you are very lucky women to be alive. It is also clear you are a fatalist.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


not at all ruth, I am just very persistent in my belief regarding the value of HUMAN LIFE

even a criminals life

I was assaulted and I MAY have been killed, but the assailant was obviously NOT interested in my death as I am still breathing

and so too should they be, because without some indication to me that someone intends to take my or my loved ones life, I could never live with taking theirs,,,,if thats fatalist,, so be it,,


what about the other three fourths of adults who dont own guns, and have not been victimized at all,, are they the 'lucky' majority? or are those others who are victims the 'unlucky' minority


its hard to really put a finger on which description is more appropriate

msharmony's photo
Fri 03/02/12 11:36 AM


maybe not to the rapists family

Ive been the victim, and I wouldnt want that person dead for it,,,
I am glad I dont know you personally or Id feel compelled to shake you when you say things like this.

There is no guarantee your rapist wont just slit your throat. Stopping someone from attacking you is stopping them from the violent possibility of your death.

msharmony it sounds like you are very lucky women to be alive. It is also clear you are a fatalist.


:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:


not at all ruth, I am just very persistent in my belief regarding the value of HUMAN LIFE

even a criminals life

I was assaulted and I MAY have been killed, but the assailant was obviously NOT interested in my death as I am still breathing

and so too should they be, because without some indication to me that someone intends to take my or my loved ones life, I could never live with taking theirs,,,,if thats fatalist,, so be it,,

1 2 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next