Point taken. My appologies. That’s what I get for insomnia driven blogging.

Do yourself a favor and take a refresher course in logical fallacies.

Do yourself a favour and look up the word “irony”.

Do actually think that is an intelligent argument? All you’ve actually said is that I was mugged because I was in a dangerous place and I wasn’t vigilant and you know I was in a dangerous place and wasn’t vigilant because I was mugged.

Do yourself a favor and take a refresher course in logical fallacies.

I see you like circular arguments.

1. You were mugged at time T in place P.

2. It is a certain fact that you were mugged at time T in place P.

3. Given that your mugging at time T in place P is a certainty, you should at the very least have been alert at the time, and very probably shouldn’t have gone there at that time in the first place.

One of the male privileges that bugs me whenever I see it is the “I can walk around after dark, etc.” privilege. While men are socialized to believe it’s safe to walk around after dark, in strange neighborhoods, in dangerous environments, believing that doesn’t make it so.

It’s not clear to me what it is that bugs you about this. It bugs me that this issue is framed as a male privilege when it’s clearly a double edged sword. Women are more fearful, but men suffer much more actual street violence. Personally, I’d rather be scared than actually victimised, but that’s just me.

I don’t want to dismiss the fear women feel. It’s a serious issue, but feminist movement loses credibility on this subject when it terrifying women with such hyperbolic references as “epidemic”, and “tide of violence against women in all arenas”.

In your scenario, yeah, probably. Not in all scenarios though. In Maryland, we have some of the most restrictive gun laws imaginable. However, shooting someone who means to do you harm in your own home, even in the back, will rarely yield little more than a plea bargain. Most prosecutors don’t even waste time pursuing these cases because most juries are sympathetic to the homeowner in such cases. Theoretically, it is still illegal to shoot someone in the back, even in your own home. In practice, no sane jury is going to convict you, even in Maryland, for shooting a burglar, no matter what the circumstances.

The same can be true in a scenario (remotely) similar to what you described. For instance, small business owners who are victims of a robbery are unlikely to be convicted if they shoot an assailant in the back to recover stolen goods. Again, this is theoretically illegal to do in many states, but in practice is rarely prosecuted due to the fact that A)juries rarely convict in such cases, B)the police are unlikely to assist the prosecution in such a case, and C)most district attorneys are likely to be ideologically aligned with the shooter.

I see you like circular arguments.

Really? Walking into a Metro station with security cameras and on duty metro police in broad daylight requires “hyper vigilence”? As compared to what?

You were mugged in one, no?

Really? Walking into a Metro station with security cameras and on duty metro police in broad daylight requires “hyper vigilence”? As compared to what? Walking down a deserted street after dark? Do you actually have any evidentiary basis for this claim, or do you simply assume that metro stations are “hyper” dangerous? Do you use public transit?

One of the male privileges that bugs me whenever I see it is the “I can walk around after dark, etc.” privilege. While men are socialized to believe it’s safe to walk around after dark, in strange neighborhoods, in dangerous environments, believing that doesn’t make it so.

Unlike a spider I only have the two eyes in front of my face, so I don’t see behind me any better than anyone else, but walking into a building like a Metro station should be a signal to be hyper-vigilant. Dittos for public restrooms and other “public” but perhaps not so heavily traveled places.

[Done. But remember, not all the mods here are “Mr.” :-P ]

D’oh! Sorry about that, Ms. :)

Thanks for your second thought. I would, however, suggest that you consider why it is that your first reflex was to find some reason for why it was my own fault that I was attacked. Is this a line of reasoning that you would normally indulge in? Or does the fact that I’m unimpressed by arguments about fending off muggers at gun point have something to do with it? Further , have you yourself ever had the experience of being mugged? It’s easy enough to forsee contingencies and imagine successful strategies when dealing in hypotheticals. Not so much when confronting the reality.

Just for clarification, I have lived in this city for the last 25 years. Consequently, I’ve used public transportation and walked a great deal. All three attacks, though separated in time and by geography, occured when I was doing nothing that I had not done previously on numerous occaisions without incident or even the hint of danger. The third instance, for example, occured at three o’clock in the afternoon on a weekday as I was entering a metro station. I did, in fact, catch my assailant out of the corner of my eye an instant before being struck, which is probably all that saved me from a fractured skull. In two instances I managed to fight off my attackers.

In any event, don’t feel too badly about your initial post. I fully expected that someone would raise the issue.

my further apologies to WB; if i thought i could reword that comment to better represent what i wanted to say, i would, but i suspect attempting it now would only jam my foot even further down my throat.

I don’t really have strong opinions on guns, but my general idea is this: the Second Amendment, first and foremost, protects the right to armed insurrection against tyrannical government and illegitimate authority. This is what I think “being necessary to the security of a free State” refers to. The most important right sanctified in the Amendment is the citizens’ right to raise an army independent of the existing governments, including state governments (i.e. National Guard).

I do think the right to own guns to shoot criminals exists, but it is on a lesser plane to the more important militia rights. Analogizing this to the right to free speech, the right to form an independent Peoples’ Militia is the right to political dissent. The right to bear arms to scare ruffians from your yard is the right to advertise commercial wares. The latter is more limited than the former.

This is mostly philosophical, so as to how current gun control laws could or should differentiate between the two, I don’t know. As I said, I don’t really think much of gun issues.

One controversial aspect of federal tax administration is that poor families are more likely to be audited by the IRS than are families with incomes over $100,000 (TRAC 2002; Tax Analysts 2000; Johnston 2000; Jones 2000). In fact, two-thirds of IRS audits are aimed at taxpayers claiming the EITC.

Source: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issuebriefs_ib183

The following testimony before Congress is a deeply boring technical grind on tax law, but it highlights that as much as 72% of EITC “fraud” may be unintentional, and that the EITC is not prone to any more cheating than the income tax in general - and yet the IRS devotes special attention to EITC fraud. From its conclusion,

However, the IRS’s preoccupation with EITC recipients seems like a poor use of scarce audit resources, is likely to undermine the EITC program, and is unfair. It is better to address the endemic problems in the income tax at all income levels. [Emphasis mine]

Source: http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/url.cfm?ID=900641

According to this NYT headline from 1999, the IRS has reduced audits of the wealthy to focus on the working poor (probably due to the EITC). According to this NYT headline from 2002, the IRS has refocused on the wealthy. So there could be a periodicity to this.

What I think happened was that during the 90’s and early 00’s, the IRS aggressively pursued low-income earners embellishing some of their EITC claims. Those were more conservative times. Over the past five years, the IRS has received withering flak for this, and companies such as Enron and WorldCom have heightened public scrutiny on paper crime and corporate fraud. So it has shifted its focus.

Regardless, I think going after tax cheats of all stripes is a great idea. About $300 billion of tax money is owed but not collected each year. Not all of that is “fraud”, some of it is honest error and others represent late returns. But if even $100 billion of that could be recovered, we could close the deficit and give juice to many programs without collecting a cent more from law abiding taxpayers. If even more could be recovered, we could probably lower tax rates on the law abiding somewhat.

paying attention to who’s around you doesn’t take more than consciously looking up and looking around you every ten, fifteen seconds or so, a bit more often if you notice something or someone odd nearby you. avoiding dangerous areas, if it’s possible at all, is no harder than recognizing what areas are dangerous. it’s simply about being aware, both consciously and emotionally, that something bad might happen to you before the end of the day and you should be watching out just in case.

getting jumped by surprise once could be down to inexperience. twice is starting to sound like carelessness, or else some pressing need to travel alone through areas it’s unwise to be alone in. three times, frankly, i’m beginning to wonder if you might not have been making some kind of mistake, because that’s an awful lot of times to be taken by surprise; without meaning disrespect, are you really sure you couldn’t have been paying better attention?

i posted a link to Marc McYoung’s website here once before, and got mildly reprimanded for it, but i still think most of his advice is generally good. you might perhaps want to spend some time reading it. please believe me that i’m really not trying to blame the victim here — it’s just hard for me to understand how you could fall to such complete surprise attacks so many times over. maybe i’ve just spent too much time in condition yellow…

Actually you’re wrong about that. I carried a gun on my person for a number of years when I was engaged in work that made it advisable. Carrying gun only provides a degree of defensive utility if you have an opportunity to use it. Contrary to what some may think, muggers do not halt at a distance and cry “your money or your life.” They operate on the principle of ambush and surprise. This was the case in all three of my experiences.

The first time I was jumped from behind by three teenage boys. The second time it was two twenty somethings who came at me from an oblique angle and got the drop on me with a nine millimeter. The third time two kids clouted me with a brick before I realized what was happening. Had I had one of my weapons with me, I would have had no opportunity to use it. Most likely it would have been stolen by the muggers. If by some chance they missed it, all I would have been able to do is shoot them while they ran. In which case I would likely be typing this from prison since that would have been murder rather than self-defense.