What abt Mt Best fridge?

[no spam]

I'm talking about an individual doing something that has very, very

You seem to have missed the below part:

Oops. Happens when I've been running on too little sleep.


1) Why should "society" pay for an individual's health care?

2) If you feel that "society" should pay for such things then shouldn't
"society" demand that the things that cost it money be stopped? Therefore,
using that logic, "society" should ban motorcycles. Heck it should ban
cars, look at the medical cost linked to them. There is an almost endless
list of items and actions that should be curtailed or banned out right.

3) Insurance is a business and if the government would keep its noise out of
its business then people who ride motorcycles would pay enough to cover
themselves.

 

[no spam]

It is the fear of this punishment which keeps many people from doing

If all the laws were suddenly repealed, would you go out and start doing
bad things?

Depends on what 'bad' is. I wouldn't stop wearing my seatbelt nor would I
start taking stuff that wasn't mine. But there are some out there that
would if the threat of punishment was not there. Look at the number of
people who have no problem with taking other people's stuff when the system
breaks down, such as after a natural disaster.

Do criminals care that there are laws against rape, robbery, assault,
murder?

Not so much the laws but about the punishment they will, not might, get if
caught. But there are people out there who are on the edge who would rob
you if they were sure they would not get punished.

Do criminals do crimes in spite of the laws against such crimes?

Most criminals are smart enough (barely) to do a cost vs benefit analysis.
After looking at the US criminal system a large number of them seem to think
the benefit is worth the risk.

There are others who look at the data and come to a different conclusion.
But when thing changes and the opportunity arises they take the chance.

It is not fear of punishment, but fear of the armed citizen that stops
crime.

Is not being shot by a home owner punishment?

Look at what happened in the L.A. riots when the shop keepers produced
firearms when faced with potential looters.

But do you think all those looters had criminal records before the riot? Or
do you think they were, for the most part, law abiding citizens.

 

[Vaughn Simon]

Let's just say that I have questions about gaps in the "official" story.

Then one of us is really gullible.

Vaughn

 

[no spam]

We all know that the US likes to go to war abroad.

Let's just say that I have questions about gaps in the "official" story.

I'm sure there are holes in the official story but I can tell you anything
saying that the towers were brought down by preplaced explosives is just
nutty. It would take hundreds of man hours to place hundreds of pounds of
explosives in places that would require you to do major work to get to.
There's no way you could hid something like that in this day an age.

BTW, I did a little research and calculating on the impact of the aircraft.
Taking just the mass and speed of the aircraft, i.e. not counting the
burning jet fuel, the force of the aircraft hitting each tower was
equivalent to about 40,000 pounds of TNT. I didn't know the exact numbers
for a couple of things so I had to make a few assumptions. With that said
you can check my work. FYI, unless other wise stated all info found by
searching internet and all conversions were done using
www.onlineconversion.com to cut down on human error.

E=1/2 mv^2 ---- Basic kinetic energy formula

240000 lbs - - - assumed weight of aircraft at impact. ([max t.o. wt +
empty wt]/2)
(max takeoff weight 315,000lbs, empty weight
164,800lbs)
470 mph - - - - assumed speed at impact (averaged from a few estimates)
689 fps - - - - mph converted to fps

E = (240000 lbs * 689 fps * 689 fps) / 2 = 56966520000 lb-ft^2/sec^2

Using the website to convert that to tons of TNT gives:

56966520000 lb-ft^2/sec^2 = 18.459 tons of TNT

I'm not sure which tons are used so it could equal either:

41,348 lbs (long tons), 40,695 lbs(metric tons) or 36,918 lbs(short tons)

With those numbers in mind it is amazing that the buildings withstood the
impact much less stood long enough for anyone to get out.

 

[no spam]

Please don't tell me you are one of those 'the towers were blown up'

Then one of us is really gullible.

Vaughn

There are some, not many, valid questions about the official story. The
same way there are still some valid questions about many other historical
incidents, e.g. the attack on Pearl Harbor and the sinking of the Titanic.

History MIGHT be able to answer these but most likely not.

 

[no spam]

It is the fear of this punishment which keeps many people from doing

"Bad" is immoral crimes against your fellow humans.
Rape, robbery, assault, murder.



And I infer, nor would you commit rape or murder. So it appears that you
won't go out and do "bad" things because you have morality. Thank you
parents for me for raising you right.

Anybody else want to weigh in on this? Which of you will go out and do
rape, robbery, assault, murder if the laws against such acts were
repealed?

You are asking the wrong question (and to the worng people IMO). The
question is how many people would go out and rape, rob, assault or murder if
they thought they would not be punished?

Looking at the history of crime and punishment in the US I'd have to say
there are many people. Long term look at the rising rate of crime in view
of the change in the punishment aspect of our judicial system. Before 1950
if you committed a crime you went to prision where life was quite harsh. As
things changed through the years to 'we can rehabilitate them' to 'its all
society's fault so we can't punish the criminal' and the punishment for
crimes committed has fallen to almost nothing the crime rate has risen. For
the short term look at the number of crimes committed when there is a break
down of 'normal' society in a black out, after a hurricane, etc.

Granted, there are some that would do "bad" things without the fear of
"punishment". But how many really? What is the number of those sitting
on that fence?

After watching the aftermath of a couple of societal break downs I'd say
that it is a large enough percentage to make me worry. How many people of
one race/religion or another do you think would have no problem attacking
someone of a different race/religion if it were legal?

Was stuff taken from armed citizens protecting their own homes?

Not the point we are talking about. We are talking about the number of law
abiding people who are only law abiding because they are afraid of being
caught and punished for breaking the law. Once that fear is gone look at
how the act.

Do criminals care that there are laws against rape, robbery, assault,
murder?

Asked and answered. But yes they care about the law based on its punishment
aspect otherwise they would not be careful to make sure they are not caught.
Which is my point. Laws can not now nor never stop people from doing
anything. Fear of punishment can.

I don't know about you but way back when I was in school the fear of getting
your butt paddled kept me and many of my friends from doing a lot of things
we would do when we were sure we would not be caught. The rules against
doing these things were not what kept us from doing them it was the fear of
the punishment.

Would they attempt to rob me if they knew I might be carrying a concealed
firearm?
(Read that as the unconstitutional firearms laws have all been repealed.)

Let's set up a scenario. All laws have been repealed or failed for some
reason and a lot of people are now carrying weapons. You are now desperate
for money (you need food, drugs or what ever) and you need it RIGHT NOW.
You see a guy walking down the street that you think has money on him but
you think he might he might be armed. What do you do? Since the threat of
punishment for killing him has been removed and you are a fairly smart
fellow; you come up behind him and use your gun to blow his brains out or
your baseball bat to knock his brains out or your knife to slit his throat
and take his money.

For the most part criminals will always pick the softest target they can
find because they are cowards. Also I think the more people carrying
weapons the better but just because you are armed doesn't mean that you
can/will not be successfully attacked. Ask an old German soldier who was in
France during WWII.

So in that case, your answer is: Yes, criminals do crimes in spite of the
laws against such crimes.
Correct.



No. It is a consequence of a bad choice. It is an IMMEDIATE consequence to
a bad choice...

Different words for the same thing.

And keep in mind, a potential criminal does NOT have to be shot to deter
the crime. Simple brandishing of a weapon gives the would be criminal the
choice... Desist and live, attack and die.

Further proof of my point. The weapon is not what stops the crime its the
fear of being shot. The law is the weapon but punishment is the shot.

Define what you intend when you say "law abiding citizen" please.

I thought you had a grasp of the English language. I would think my asking
about criminal records would make it clear what I meant. But I will
clarify. Since there are some people out there that have committed crimes
and were not arressted and/or convicted let's to expand it even further.
Let us say, for this specific case, the term "law abiding citizen" applies
to one who has no history of going into a business and removed items for
sale w/o paying for them, i.e. stealing the items.

Now do you think a large percentage of the looters you saw on TV were law
abiding citizens up to that point? If so what made them to suddenly turn
into criminals? The laws had not changed, stealing was still against the
law. Their circumstance had not changed, they had not lost their jobs and
in great need of money. I don't think they suddenly discovered that they
had no shoes to wear or food to eat but for some reason these people stopped
obeying the law. Why? IMNSHO, it was the simple fact that they felt that
they could do it and not face any punishment for it. Which is my point,
there are many people out there that are held in check only by the fear of
punishment. The punishment maybe a monetary fine, being humiliated at being
caught, loss of freedom or being shot. Its still the fear of that
punishment that holds some people in check.

 

[Trygve Lillefosse]

Then one of us is really gullible.

I think that it's a bit like beeing afraid of the dark. You see
something moving, and it becomes clearer and clearer that it's
something dangerous. You will even know what it is, and why it is
dangerous.

Untill the lights comes on, and you see a three, pile of something, a
small furry animal, a serial killer or whatever.

If you are affraid of anything else, or just distrustfull, you tend to
think the worst, and create* evidence for your story or tilt the
existing evidence. This does offcource not mean that there cannot be
conspiracies**, but that the big ones are pretty unlikely.

* There will only a few that will go this far, but others will belive
in the evidence and use it as truth.
** But if the evidences are mainly negative ones, as in "it is not
possible to prove that it did not happened as in my theory, so it must
be true." It is probarbly just a hoax.