Jenny, sorry, but “sex” is what it’s all about. And I don’t believe it is limited to just this country…

Sex is of primary importance, for both men and women — they have different goals for it (women focus on kids, men focus on the sex itself — it’s the way we’re both wired), but it’s one of the central needs of human beings, following air, water, food, and shelter, in that order.

Historically, women have used sex to get what they want (i.e., kids, and resources to raise them to adulthood).

This has rewarded men who respond to a woman’s sexuality strongly (they got laid and those women have their kids, so the guys who responded strongly to a woman’s sexuality had their genes spread farther and wider).

Since men are highly visual, this makes a woman’s physical appeal relevant and important to how a man perceives a woman. Jeanne possesses many classically attractive features — blondish hair, high cheekbones, sharp chin, a fairly symmetrical face. A little harsh/strong, esp. around the mouth, but not excessively so.

So men respond to that. She also showed that she can take care of herself. This appeals to at least some men (tied, perhaps, to the natural male drive to “spread it around” which it would help since it means a man would not have to protect a woman as much — counter to the monogamist tradition I grant but there are clear reasons why that behavior would survive, a guy who “spreads it around” is more likely to have kids who survive to adulthood under primitive conditions, so his genes prosper)

Women don’t respond to men visually to the same degree, but you do have your own set of “preferred qualities” which have their place in human male-female interactions.

As a group, women prefer men with high social standing, good resources, and desirable survival qualities (healthiness, a strong physique, etc. Intelligence is also valuable).
The reason for these being valuable tie, once more, to primitive conditions — they increase the chances that your progeny will prosper and thrive, a much more touch-and-go thing prior to the 20th century.

Often you’ll respond to these things without even thingking about them. Look at any actor on TV, any man you consider “desirable” — most of the time, you’re likely to be responding to one or more of these qualities. It doesn’t matter if those things are not needed as much nowadays as they were 150 years ago (it’s a lot easier for kids to survive now) — you’re still wired that way.

Recent civilization hasn’t substantially effected the gene pool (well, too much tiger food and not enough tigers, but that’s another conversation) just yet. You and the women and men around you are still wired for a set of responses to the other sex that isn’t likely to change a lot real soon.

It’s not wrong, although you’ve probably been taught that by the idiot feminist movement. Certainly there are some elements, if not a lot, which are not just not needed but counter-productive, but that’s the way we are wired. While you can, and should, push for those things to change, expecting massive changes in human nature during your lifetime is not a recipe for happiness in life. I recommend taking people as they are, and just dealing with it. You can nudge people in a better direction, but assuming they are going to massively change is likely to make you miserable. Tilting against windmills only hurts you, not the windmill.

Don’t –repeat don’t– take that as meaning “don’t bother” — changing things for the better is ALWAYS a good goal — but it’s not a sure thing, or even a likely thing — it’s a long shot, and that is how you should take it, should you decide it is worth the effort. If you win, just a little, you will be happy. If you lose, hell, you’re just a mere human. You did what you could.

OK, people do NOT allow this well-meaning fool to mistarget the debate.

THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS is NOT about CRIME. It’s about MAINTAINING CONTROL of **YOUR** government.

That is the expressly stated argument given in Federalist #46, which deals with WHY that right was presumed for all American citizens, and re-affirmed by the Bill of Rights. This was the document that US Citizens were reading when they were considering voting for the Constitution to replace the earlier Articles of Confederation.

Stop letting the Useful Idiots retarget the debate. The purpose of ownership in the USA is simple — it means that the people represent a force which will stop anyone from ever taking over the Government by force.

The need for this is even MORE important in this day and age than ever before. In a place where the Army has the kind of firepower that it has, do you — any of you — really want to have to attack them with sticks, bottles, and knives? Does the pseudo-word “Duh” come to mind? How about the phrase “Hell f***ing NO!!”.

“That can’t happen here!” I certainly hope not, but I do not presume that this nation is any more invulnerable to foolishness than Germany of 1920. Only 15 years later, they were already under the total control of the Nazis and the Brownshirts.

We had a defacto Constitutional Crisis in 2000, with the “signal” from the electorate getting swamped out by the “noise” (errors were overwhelming the ability to discern what was ‘said’ by the people as to who would be president).

In many countries, the parties would have fought over who would rule. THAT CAN’T HAPPEN HERE. Why? Because the politicos KNOW that the US Populace would not accept such a president — so they fought it out with deadlier weapons (aka lawyers), and finally one set beat out the other with legal maneuvers. You don’t have to like that, but it represents a fairly unique event in human history.

*** Because we have guns ***

…And if they argue that militia==National Guard, tell them NO — refer them to Fed#46, again. The “militia” is no less than every able-bodied man (citizen) of the USA. It’s spelled out right there, folks.

Keep the debate where it belongs. Don’t let them change it. They cannot win on that front, and they know this.

The history of Democide in the 20th century shows the inarguable danger of NOT having guns. I did a breakdown in the late 90s, estimating what having gun ownership worldwide as they have in the USA would mean (get gun death figures for each decade, count each year’s value as decade-end figure — i.e., 1921=1930, 1922-1930…1930=1930, 1931=1940, etc., which is conservative, it’s going to be high. Use US pop figures from census data, and world pop figures as available, to proportionally estimate how many would have died each year if the entire world had US-style death rates from guns (probably also conservative, US is a fairly violent place). The final estimate was that, from 1920 to ca. 1998, roughly 12 million people would have died worldwide.

A lot of people, right?

Well, try 20th Century Democide:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20th.htm
Death by government, 1900-1999?
260 MILLION.

More than 21 deaths — real, actual dead bodies — for every “potential” body that might have died in personal gun violence.

Keep it on track people — owning guns is about **controlling your government** — NOT about crime. Crime reduction is a side benefit. You should know the stats and the arguments, but it’s NEVER BEEN about that.

Mr Theo – the problem is not that of an out of control gun culture, it is that of a culture bent on removing God from society. When we approach a level of no absolute truth, no morals and no ethics, situations like this are the result. Responsible citizens within society must be prepared to defend themselves (numerous reason mentioned above). Fortunately our founding fathers and current laws (in most rational states) allow for this through the proper evaluation, training and licensing of concealed weapons carry permits.

What I don’t understand is why we are having conversations in the media about ‘killer blondes’ or ‘pretty’ or any of that BS. If this were a man and former police officer, would we be saying ‘hot hunky former cop?’ or “killer brunette Ted?” lol. What is the obsession in this country with sexualizing women?

And what is the obsession with making this more than it is? I’ve worked with women police officers that had to shoot someone in the course of duty. There was none of this media hoopla. Media, please give this woman her due- treat her with dignity and respect her professionalism and guts instead of treating her like Barbie.

Somebody please revoke theo’s driver’s license. If he doesn’t trust me with carrying a puny pistol around, I’m not sure I can trust him to drive a 3100 pound car at 45 mph just a few feet away from pedestrians on the sidewalk. Our out of control gun culture pales in comparison to our out of control car culture and not just in terms of deadliness. Reckless endangerment isn’t really an issue with gun owners, as it really is easier to be safe with a scary looking assault rifle than with a bona fide killing machine–I mean ‘car.’

Hopefully theo isn’t a practicing physician, or I’m afraid I would have to ask him to surrender his medical license. Our out of control doctor culture is responsible for an alarming number of preventable deaths; in fact, considerably more die at the hands of physicians than at the hands of gun-wielding psychos and gun-wielding honest citizens.

And I hope theo has an electric stove, because I certainly don’t trust him to safely operate a device involving a flammable gas.

For the sake of Theo’s life, somebody please remove all the fattening and otherwise unhealthy foods from his refrigerator. Do you realize how many hundreds of thousands of Americans die horribly unpleasant deaths from diet and lifestyle related complications?

theo, you phail. Go troll left-wingnut forums where your foolishness will pass as some kind of smarts.

YOU, my friend, are a whack-job! If I send you a quarter, will you use it to go buy a clue? Let’s just make more laws to prevent innocent citizens from protecting themselves, right? Did it ever occur to your little pea-sized brain that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws? Well, did it???

I would venture to say that if the gunman was aiming at your head, you’d have a new appreciation for the armed citizen(s) (in this case, a woman) who saved your life. Or would you rather she have been disarmed by the stupid laws you defend… It’s your brains that would be splattered, not mine. Oh, check that. Judging from the tripe you spew, you probably don’t have any brains. Blood then… It’s your blood that will flow, not mine.

As for me: I won’t be a victim. I choose to carry, and I accept the responsibility that goes with it. I’m trained, I practice regularly, and I take carrying a loaded weapon VERY seriously.

Just make sure you tell all of us armed citizens what you look like, so if we’re ever in a situation where we can save your life, we can be sure to look the other way while you get killed. We wouldn’t want to offend you with our “out-of-control gun culture”, now, would we?

If it had been me would the head lines read..”Killer Skinhead” just because I lost my hair 10 years ago?

Yes we need to stop cowards from attacking soft targets…

Yes..discounts should be given to those who responsibly carry firearms…

Can we start a fund for her to spend a month in Florida this winter..?

Preferably…Vero Beach)?

day_earth_still@bellsouth.net

Yet, it is counterproductive and even dangerous for every Tom, Dick, Harry, and Sally to appoint himself or herself and walk around carrying heat. Having only qualified, licenced, and selected personnel provides the correct balance of having protectors like Jeanne Assam, a hero, and trusting a posse of self-appointed gun enthusiasts.

Brings to mind the thought that if someone in the crowd of shoppers at the Omaha mall was carrying that the death toll might’ve been less. Which caused me to have a “bright idea” – well, I think so, anyway – to persuade malls to remove “No Guns Allowed” signs and get the various stores inside to give 5% or 10% discounts to people with a CCW when they show their permit.

Oh, a small thing that I noticed this AM when I had FOXNEWS droning in the background. One of the Brady campaign (to make everyone but the state helpless) gomers was being interviewed and about all he could say was that it was a “bad thing” that anyone could get an “assault rifle”. What a goombah.

Again, to Jeanne Assam: Well done!