5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
At 2/7/13 06:49 PM, Saen wrote:M-16/AR-15:
36-77 grains (weight)
3,000-3,750 f/ps (velocity)
.223" diameter
1,200 ft-lbs (energy)
AK-47
125-154 grains
2,100-2,600 f/ps
.30" diameter
2,000-2,500 ft-lbs
.270 (relatively small deer/game load)
90-150 grains
2,850-3,600 f/ps
.270" diameter
2,600-2,950 ft-lbs
And by this same argument and "logic" of yours assault rifles should be deemed more deadly than pistols and shotguns in mass shootings. What's gonna be jack?
And since I have the time to further destroy/expose your heretofore biased attempts to discredit those who are trying to educate you on the complexities of what makes a gun lethal and or effective:
9mm (small bore pistol cartridge)
115-125 grains
1,200-1,430 f/ps
.355" diameter
400-500 ft-lbs
.45 ACP (large bore pistol cartridge)
185-230 grains
800-1,225 f/ps
.452" diameter
350-616 ft-lbs
.44 Rem Mag (large bore/magnum pistol cartridge...also suitable for hunting deer)
200-340 grain
1,280-1,500 f/ps
.429" diameter
760-1,533 ft-lbs
Now you'll notice a few things:
* Even the small bore pistol round was larger in diameter than the high-power deer rifle round.
* Even the smallest one was comparabe in weight/mass to the largest rifle bullet. Large bore pistol rounds being upwards of over 2x heavier.
* Slower muzzle velocities.
* Less energy when hitting the target.
You'd think the last two would make these weaker and less lethal. But...it actually makes them MORE lethal. See if the bullet is traveling slower, then it has a greater chance of mushrooming if you are firing a HP, JHP, or soft lead core bullet (same thing if you're firing a .69" diameter lead slug from a shotgun). Also, there is more of a chance of the bullet staying in the body, and shredding internal organs as it tumbles and bounces off of bones. Therefore, it inflicts far more internal damage than a military round that just zips right through you in a relatively linear line leaving a wound channel that is just a little wider than the bullet's diameter.
So, Jack...'what's gonna be?'
You totally pwnd is what's gonna be! :)
[CONT.]
Also, as a social scientist who has studied this I've seen the following data:
* The correlation between gun availability and gun crime is statistically insignificant with a p-value quite often less than the 0.05 threshold for significance.
* The US is not statistically more prone to gun violence than other countries. We are about 0.82 standard deviations from the mean for firearm homicides compared to Canada which is about -0.86. Anything greater than 1 standard deviation from the mean is considered outside normal limits.
* Gun crime's causal factors, as determined by scientific inquiry, are:
1) Economic
2) Education
3) Ethnolinguistic factionalization (ELF) or how diverse a country is along racial and linguistic lines. Especially troublesome are places with a high ELF where minority races are at a social, economic, and/or educational disadvantage.
* If we target any type of firearm for increased control...it should be handguns.
So seeking further gun control will get us nowhere but a place where we feel better that we have done something when in fact we have not only done nothing...we may have behaved counterproductively.
Lastly, my credentials to speak on this subject:
* Competitive Shooter
* Hunter
* Military member (trained in firearms by both the Air Force and Army)
* MS in Political Science
I am very conscious of my personal bias towards guns. But while I have a fondness for them, I have an understanding of them that a researcher who is unfamiliar with the technical side of guns lack. Furthermore, through academic training I am aware of this bias and instead let the data and objective, normal, and accepted social science methodologies lead me to my conclusions. Not emotionally charged descriptive stats that you'll see on the website for the NRA or Handgun control Inc.
SOURCES
Guns-Not the Mentally Ill-Kill People
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). "FBI's Four-Pronged Assessment Model." Education World. Education World, INC., n.d. Web. 30 Jan 2013.
Iowa Homeland Security (IHS). "The School Shooter: A Quick Reference Guide - Iowa Homeland Security." . Iowa Homeland Security. Web. 30 Jan 2013.
Kalish, Rachel, and Michael Kimmel. "Suicide by mass murder: Masculinity, aggrieved entitlement, and rampage school shootings." Health Sociology Review. 19.4 (2010): 451-464. Print.
Leuschner, Vincenz, Rebecca Bondii, Miriam Schroer-Hippel, Jennifer Panno, Katharina Neumetzler, Sarah Fisch, Johanna Scholl, and Herbert Scheithauer. "Prevention of homicidal violence in schools in Germany: The Berlin Leaking Project and the Networks Against School Shootings Project (NETWASS)." New Directions for Youth Development. Spring.129 (2011): 61-77. Print.
Rubens, R. L. Psychoanalysis and the tragic sense of life. New Issues in Psychology, 1992, 10 (3), 347-362. (Accessed online at: http://www.columbia.edu/~rr322/Tragedy.html)
Warnick,, Bryan, Benjamin Johnson, and Samuel Rocha. "Tragedy and the meaning of school shootings." Educational Theory. 60.3 (2010): 371-390. Print.
At 2/8/13 06:31 AM, Saen wrote: It's bullshit and that's why advocates of gun restriction just cannot take you guys seriously. You know what they would really appreciate though and I'm sure you guys would enjoy doing? A genuine, unbiased education of types of guns, bullets, magazines, history, etc. This would really help both sides of the argument come to a reasonable resolution when it comes to proposing new gun legislation.
No Saen, the bullshit here is you.
You are not the arbiter of reason, logic, or sanity. Nor do you speak for advocates of gun control. There are far, far better spokespersons on this BBS than you: Camarohusky, theburningliberal, Feoric, and PoxPower to name a few. These are individuals with whom I have the genuine and unbiased sort of education that you speak of. And we have an actual dialogue where we consider each other's points of view and find some common ground.
You on the other hand, knee-jerk when presented with facts that contradict assumptions that to you, as a firearms layperson, seem reasonable and logical...disregard them as biased and bullshit.
So in the end, what you are really searching for (and here you show your hand) is NOT "A genuine, unbiased education of types of guns, bullets, magazines, history, etc.", but rather someone to give your beliefs a concrete foundation. You are not on a search for truth, but instead you are on a search for someone to tell you that you are right.
====
But in the spirit of that which you articulate:
BULLET TYPES
FMJ
HP (For a discussion of what is and is not acceptable for use in warfare pay attention to this section and here.)
Other types
BULLET POWER
Intermediate power. This also explains where assault rifle rounds fit in relative to the range and muzzle velocity of handgun and full/high-powered rifle rounds.
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE 1994 AWB
* The ban targeted weapons based on features that did not effect the weapons' operation, removing these features allowed versions that were functionally identical but cosmetically different be sold. (pg 1)
* It banned Lg Capacity Magazines (LGMs), but not those already in circulation. 21% of handguns accepted LGMs in 1994.
* The decline in use of 'assault weapons' seen between 1994-2004 were seen in pistols...not rifles. (pg 2)
* Assault rifles were rarely used in crime even before the AWB. (Ibid)
* AWs were rarely used in crime prior to 1994 (2%-5%). (Ibid)
* LCMs contributed more to crime than AWs (14-26% of gun crimes). (Ibid)
* The ban on LCMs was undermined by the amount of LCMs already in circulation. (Ibid)
* 'Assault' pistols outnumbered Assault rifle (clones) in the use of crime by 3:1. (pg 15)
* Assault weapons are not useful in the commission of crime due to difficulty concealing them, and 'assault' pistols tend to be signifcantly more expensive than non-assault pistols. (Ibid)
SOURCE
In reading this study, I come away with the impression that an AWB would not accomplish much. We are targeting a small amount of crime with this. But if we wanted to be somewhat proactive and make some movement towards reasonable, restrictions the following public policy would make the most sense:
* Restricting pistol magazines to 10 rounds.
MY OWN HUMANITY
In 1999 my ex-wife and I took in her brother. Her brother and her came from an abusive home, and were not accepted by my community when they moved there about 8 years earlier. Her little brother seemed to catch the brunt of bullying at school and by 1998 he was exhibiting violent tendencies. My ex and I had moved 40 miles away and took guardianship of him. On moving in, shortly after Columbine, he told me the plan he and his buddy had come up with before Columbine. It was chilling to listen to him describe in detail how he was going to kill students at the school I graduated from...and my mother taught at. We got him out of that situation and thanks to the Mo National Guard's Show-Me Challenge program...we prevented him from throwing away his and other's lives.
So yeah...I take this very seriously and look at this from the perspective of someone who came damn close to be the son of a victim and the brother-in-law of a perp who himself was a victim.
Since then, as I have become more of an academic (earning my Masters in political science and enrolled in a PhD program until I was deployed), I have studied the phenomenon of mass killers and have come up with the following conclusions:
* They are a public ritual for joiners who are rejected by their peers (as opposed to being loners) in which they destroy themselves through a ceremonial suicide that sacrifices innocents (which is why the bullies at Columbine were spared).
* That this ritual fulfills a need for a rite of passage, that is non-existent in white American. This explains why mass shooters are white males and very, very few are black or latino. (Gangs and gang pop culture provide this for those groups.)
* In response to these ceremonies, survivors have counter-ceremonies of revenge/justice or forgiveness/advocacy. These include: asking for the death penalty or multiple life sentences (revenge/justice) or forgiving the shooter and/or advocating for gun control (forgiveness/advocacy). This is why I would be compassionate towards a survivor close to the time of the tragedy because this is a way of mourning. But it does not mean that their ritual and mourning process should effect public policy and/or governance.
* We should look at how school reform by Clinton, Bush, and now Obama makes our schools places of institutional violence that suppresses kids prior to a mass violence event. (IE: zero-tolerance policies, school uniforms, uniformed police, accountability testing, etc).
* Be very careful of how kids are labeled and that we do not overreact and label them.
* We should be very careful of how we treat the mentally ill, scapegoating them will have a chilling effect on people seeking help. A veteran or cop suffering from PTSD may avoid treatment that could prevent him from going off the rails if seeking treatment removes his/her gun rights.
* Shooters have also used bombs and starting to use chemical weapons (Holmes in Aurora used a homemade irritant). While Germany saw mass shooters move to things like axes...our mass shooters will more likely move to more lethal means (substitution effects) in lieu of firearms. Therefore, address the cause is more important than addressing the symptom.
At 2/7/13 06:49 PM, Saen wrote: It's not hunting I'm sorry! There's absolutely no sport in hunting with an AK-47 and it's certainly something I would ever admit to doing any serious hunter.
I'm sorry, but just because you say it is so...does not make it so. I am part of the hunting community here in Mo, a community that (judging from your description) is much more sporting and ethical than the hunters you know in Florida. And I we talk about what we use. When I'm hunting my field, I use a .270 bolt action. It is much more accurate, scoped, and has a longer range (both in terms of accuracy and killing power). When I am in the woods I do not need/want a scope, nor do I need that powerful of a cartridge. I need a brush gun.
My AK-47 semi-auto clone, loaded with hunting rounds instead of the less effective military ammo in a 5rd mag is perfectly sporting, ethical, and legal for hunting.
See in the 1990s the SKS and AK became more popular for hunting deer, for the following reasons:
* When I got my MAK-90 (Chinese variant) it only cost me $250, about half the cost of a deer rifle.
* I can buy military surplus ammo at about $6/box of 20 at Walmart. Last time I bought in bulk I got it for $0.27/round. So I can practice and spend more time at the range (making me more accurate and thus more safe). I'm looking at about $25/box of 20 rounds for my .270 at Walmart. (Hunting ammo for the AK at Walmart is about $20-25) So I don't shoot my .270 as much because of just how expensive it is.
* When you are hunting in the woods you do not take shots at long range. On my property the longest shot in the woods I'll take is 75 yards. I do not need a scope, nor do I need a high-powered round. The AK round is what's called an 'intermediate' round because it's power is between that of a pistol round and a high-powered round. The AK is accurate out to 150 yards (compared to more than double for a traditional deer round) it also loses energy (ie: killing power) about 200-250 yards (traditional deer rifles can remain lethal over far greater distances).
Either tell me something based in fact why hunting with an AK is 'fucking insane' or STFU...by ignoring facts you are not being a good spokesperson for your side. Instead you are displaying ignorance and closed-mindedness.
Smaller mags force a shooter to be more economical with his rounds, which forces them into firing aimed shots. This is why mass shooters armed with handguns tend to kill and wound more people than shooters with assault rifles.Lmfao if you can explain this with a straight face to the parent victims of mass shooting more power to you! Seriously this is just laughable.
When you look at mass shootings a few trends appear:
* When the shooter uses assault rifles there are fewer deaths and serious injuries than when handguns are used.
* More people are hit with less rounds expended when the shooter uses a handgun than when he uses an assault rifle.
Part of this is that high capacity mags tend to present the following issues and induce the following behaviors:
* High capacity magazines are prone to failure. This is why we do not issue riflemen in the Army and Marines 100rd drum mags. Even 30rd mags for the M-16 are so problematic that the military has had to re-engineer them.
* While most mass shootings tend to include massive planning, not much research goes into firearm selection. The good thing about people like you perpetrating the myth/error/fallacy that assault rifles and military rounds create maximum damage and that high rates of fire result in high body counts...perpetrates behavior such as pulling the trigger as fast as possible. This means less people get hurt or die.
Here's some examples:
Stockton,Ca:
Man opens up with an AK clone fired 100 rounds onto a playground using spray and pray, only killed five.
Virginia Tech:
Cho stalked from classroom to classroom using a .22 and 9mm pistol. He fired approcimately 99-100 rounds. Killed 32.
N. Hollywood:
Bank robbers had a shoot-out with police using modified to full auto assault rifles. They fired over 3,000 rounds. Hit 17 people...killed no one.
Aurora, Co:
Holmes opened up with his AR using a 100rd drum mag. Not even getting 30 rounds off...the drum failed. He switched to a shotgun (from the reports I think he may have been using birdshot) and when he emptied that low capacity mag he switched to handguns. Therefore, of the 70 people hit in this shooting, once the corner report is released it will most likely show that less people where hit by the AR and the most serious wounds and greater amount of death was caused by the handguns.
That you want to speak about feelings rather than focusing on what will actually save lives shows that you lack a humane perspective on this subject as well as a lack of knowledge of the history.By that logic handguns and shotguns should be made illegal because they are deadlier at killing 4ft elementary school students and have a recoil rate of +2cm per 20 milliseconds and the bullets are more likely to force the soul out of the victim.
Yes, when you look at the facts any further gun control on assault rifles do not address any issue. Assault rifles, statistically speaking are used in a rate approaching zero. About 0.04% of murders involve an AR or AK clone. Meanwhile, 75-89% of firearm murders use handguns. In studies interveiwing criminals, many who have access to both handguns and assault rifle clones choose the handgun (or shotgun) over the assault rifle because they are better suited to close quarters tactical situation and are more capable of killing a person (ergo...not leaving a witness).
A full auto Uzi? I wouldn't tell anyone else that lol.
Um...they have not been banned. I own one.
* A full auto Uzi is not outlawed. I merely requires a Class III license.
* What I own is a semi-auto Uzi. I can get my Class III, but I see them as ineffective and a waste of money.
Right, I forgot that the conservative, gun tooting party doesn't want to kill terrorists in the war on terror, my bad.
Um...no...I'm pointing out the legal and scientific FACT that the military uses ammo that is LESS than lethal. ...
Um...what does this have to do with anything? According to international law (known as Law Of Armed Conflict), specifically the Hague Convention...the use of non-FMJ ammo is expressly prohibited. The Hague Convention prohibits the use of ammo that will make death inevitable.
The Bush administration did not authorize the use of hunting ammo or self-defense ammo (ie: soft lead core, HP or JHP).
This point, besides avoiding the facts, only shows just how little of basis from which you have to speak.
So yeah...assault rifle rounds are NOT heavy/high-powered/big rounds! AK-47 rounds are equivalent to smaller game rounds (antelope/deer)...but do not have near the effective range of tradtional hunting rounds.And by this same argument and "logic" of yours assault rifles should be deemed more deadly than pistols and shotguns in mass shootings. What's gonna be jack?
No...because handgun and pistol rounds tend to be even heavier. Also, the physical properties of the bullets make them more deadly. In no way does this run counter or conflicts whith anything I have previously said.
At 2/7/13 12:23 PM, Saen wrote: In that situation I think a rifle will do just fine.
I'm sorry, but I've got to slip into technicals (ie: scientific fact) so I'm sorry not to insert something as concrete as 'feelings'...
But a deer rifle still not be able to cut it. Yes, a deer rifle has the velocity (ie: power), but not the composition. A hollow point or soft lead core could be stopped. On the other hand an intermediate round FMJ would have the proper composition.
With coyotes it's really just a matter of personal preference, there will be few situations where you'll have to shoot from a distance compared to that of a scald crow. In either situation you don't need any kind of extended magazine.
An assault rifle does not have that great of a distance.
Nope it's perfectly legal, it's how "hunting" is done in Florida. Load up your dog cage in your half ton, drive out to the woods, let your dogs out into the woods, and sit in the back of your truck wearing an orange vest with a rifle in one hand and a Bud in the other. You do not fucking need an AK-47 to "hunt" deer that is fucking insane.
Um...okay...that's not the way he hunt in Mo. That's considered unethical.
On the other hand, why do you think that using an AK-47 to hunt deer is insane? In fact in a close range situation, the AK would be the safer choice because it has the killing power of a high-powered round at close range...but does not have the range of a high powered rifle. This reduces the chance of hurting someone or damaging property if you miss (it happens) than if you are using a traditional deer rifle. Also, if using a semi-auto you are limited to a five round mag.
So claiming that using an AK is fucking insane...if just ignorance.
What really bothers me is what Americans are calling hunting. Hunting requires skill, patience, an a certain amount of risk. None of which is involved when you "hunt" with a heavy assault rifle and don't even fucking venture out into the woods.
1) Sorry, but what you are talking is not representative of American's hunting attitudes; but of Florida's.
2) The AK is better for hunting in the woods. It is not a high-powered (or 'heavy) rifle...but of limited range. You need a gun that is effective at close-range...not the sniper-like long range of a traditional deer rifle.
How accurate do you need to be when your targets are 10 ft in front of you in a classroom? ...
You need to be more accurate than is possible when you are pulling the trigger as fast as you can. When you do this, your second shot will be higher than the average elementary student is tall and your fourth shot will be higher than the average adult. Anything past that will be in the ceiling. So yeah...you have to be somewhat accurate which people armed with assault rifles tend not to be.
Smaller mags force a shooter to be more economical with his rounds, which forces them into firing aimed shots. This is why mass shooters armed with handguns tend to kill and wound more people than shooters with assault rifles.
This can be seen in Aurora, Co. He opened up with an AR, but the high cap mag failed after less than 30 shots were fired forcing him to his shotgun (which had less than 10 shells) and then his handguns. Of the 70 people hit, I would make an informed guess that 15-20 were hit with AR rounds and the remaining 50-55 were hit with shotgun pellets and handgun ammo. The majority of serious wounds and deaths being from the handguns.
This is exactly why people with fear and no experience with guns CANNOT take you seriously. Technical bullshit such as this when we are talking about the legality of large magazine sizes and assault rifles and their role in mass shootings.
In the case of military style firearms, .. are some of the least 'badass' rounds out there...
You should probably retire from being the spokesperson of your side of the argument. This 'technical bullshit' are scientific facts. Round/bullet characteristics are THE deciding factor in how effective at killing and wounding a firearm are. 'Assault rifles' are cosmetic features of the gun that effects the lethality very little. High capacity magazines do play some role, but not as much as you'd think. The vast majority of shooters using assault rifles in mass shootings spray and pray which means bullets miss their targets and they run out of ammo faster which means more lives saved.
And for me reducing the amount of lives lost and the severity of wounds is seen both in the history of the subject as well as speaks to my humanity on the subject.
Again same point I made above. Taking the humanity and history out of the situation and diving head first into technicalities.
That you want to speak about feelings rather than focusing on what will actually save lives shows that you lack a humane perspective on this subject as well as a lack of knowledge of the history.
Then why have Uzi's been banned? It seems the compact, high rate of fire, and large magazine capacity combination has been deemed too deadly of a combination.
Um...they have not been banned. I own one.
Secondly, full-auto guns were outlawed at the time that the Tommy Gun was representative of them. The gun weighed about 13lbs fully loaded. This made muzzle rise less of an issue than the M-16/AR-15 that weighs 8.8lbs fully loaded or the UZI which is around 4lbs.
Thus, these firearms are not the killing machine menace that politicians and gun control advocates make them out to be.What you suggest our military use instead to be "more deadly"?
Um...no...I'm pointing out the legal and scientific FACT that the military uses ammo that is LESS than lethal. There are reasons you do not want to kill the other side's soldiers with small arms fire...so I would not suggest arming the military with deadly/lethal ammo.
I never made that suggestion. No one here has any professional experience in being involved in a war with our government.
But I do have the knowledge of history of rebel groups fighting our military, and experience in that military in a time of war with guerilla fighters. ;)
If you would like to get your point across and be taken seriously by members on the other side of the argument, you all need to let that idea go.
This line of argument is less than 5% of my point. The rest of my argument uses facts, logic, and scientific/academic studies to build a coherent public policy opinion. I am speaking to:
* The intent of the second amendment and
* The relevance/applicability/feasibility of that intent today.
The points I make are based upon relevant experience and education, whereas you are making assumptions made upon erroneous suppostions.
... There is nothing wrong with hunting rifles and calling the bullet sizes of assault rifles small when compared them to hunting rifles is absurd.
Not absurd...factually true.
M-16/AR-15:
36-77 grains (weight)
3,000-3,750 f/ps (velocity)
.223" diameter
1,200 ft-lbs (energy)
AK-47
125-154 grains
2,100-2,600 f/ps
.30" diameter
2,000-2,500 ft-lbs
.270 (relatively small deer/game load)
90-150 grains
2,850-3,600 f/ps
.270" diameter
2,600-2,950 ft-lbs
So yeah...assault rifle rounds are NOT heavy/high-powered/big rounds! AK-47 rounds are equivalent to smaller game rounds (antelope/deer)...but do not have near the effective range of tradtional hunting rounds.
At 2/7/13 12:12 PM, poxpower wrote: I cannot find facts to back this up.
No one seems to have written down data on rape victim clothing and attractiveness.
Um...I'm not saying that it is the attractiveness of of slutty clothing that helps put the person at risk. My argument is that it makes access to the goods easier. It makes a person an easier target than someone who is dressed in say jeans. Furthermore, it is not just about being 'slutty' or 'sexy'. Someone dressed conservatively in an ankle length dress would be easier to rape than a woman wearing pants.
Someone could be wearing a skin-tight, latex bodysuit, and as long as she doesn't have a zipper at the crotch...the act of rape would be more difficult than the conservative woman wearing a safe-for-church dress.
At 2/7/13 01:11 PM, Saen wrote: It may be a factor, but certainly not a deciding factor for a predator. Potential victims appear weak, alone, and vulnerable (so intoxicated, high, distracted, etc.). Dressing provocatively may draw the attention of a predator, but is certainly not a factor in a predator's decision of whether or not to strike. This is just criminology 101.
Sorry, but criminology 101 would go against you here. If you are walking down the abandoned ally where the rapist is creepin'...then what you are wearing would not be a factor since you're the only target.
However, if you're in a target rich environment (ie: frat party, drinking, other risk factors)...then yes it very well could be the deciding factor. In the case of where a predator has a choice of targets...then how easy/difficult clothing makes a rape will probably be a HUGE factor in a predator's decision. It could be THE deciding factor.
At 2/7/13 01:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I would be so quick to discard it.
Kidnap rapists and the violent attacking sort of rapists don't care about the victim's clothing. Sure, 6'6" rosie the riverter walks by in her full jumpsuit and they may steer cler of her, but that has more to do with her strong appearance, not the size of her clothing.
These sort of rapists don't care much about time it takes as they way they attack involves attacking in, or taking to, a location where there is a high amount of privacy.
Also, these sort of rapes are the ones that are more driven by violence and control, meaning it's about the pain and domination, not the sex.
I think the kidnapping rapist and the violent rapist are two different animals with different motivations and behaviors. For example, I don't the think the kidnapping rapist would care much about clothing unless he has some sort of fetish which irrationally draws him to a certain woman. In that case it could be wearing high heels, glasses, or hair color that would be the object of his fixation.
Also, this dude is going to plan his strike and probably going to stalk her before kidnapping her. Therefore, clothing would be no factor.
On the other hand, if the rapist is the violent attacker...he may not be all that much of a planner. So he may be looking for a target of opportunity. He probably does not have all the time in the world so struggling with jeans or other pants would be a deterent. On the other hand, being able to flip up a girl's dress/skirt and you're there would make the act easier. And let's face it...since they are not out for a fair fight they are probably not up for the more challenging person to rape.
At 2/5/13 10:35 AM, Saen wrote: I can't say the same for women who dress like awesome sluts. They aren't asking to be raped nor does putting on sexy clothing mean they want to have sex with everyone, the alternate notion is just silly.
Take the emotion out of it and re-read what Ear is saying. In no way is he saying they are "asking" for rape or "wanting to have sex". Instead, what he is arguing is that it makes one a target for rape. It is a factor that increases one's chances for being victimized and if one does not want to be victimized...the reality is they may not be able to dress like they want to.
In no way does this mean I (and I think Ear shares this sentiment) think that how a victim is dressed should ever be used as a defense for the rapist. EVER.
At 2/5/13 10:21 AM, Earfetish wrote:At 2/5/13 10:12 AM, poxpower wrote: Doesn't it depend more on the time of day or the neighborhood? Or traveling in groups / with men?You are right, I very much doubt that clothing choices have any relevance to rape risk, despite what Muslim women might say. Circumstance and being in the wrong place at the wrong time are the biggest risks.
Aren't most rapes committed by non-strangers anyway?And that is also correct. However, alcohol is a risk factor in both stranger and acquaintance rape, so she was right to warn about this.
I would not be so fast to discard the idea that clothing adds to a person's chances of getting raped. Predators do not seek out the biggest, strongest Ox in the herd. Instead they pick out the most vulnerable and the easiest to attack. If a girl is wearing jeans, those are hard to get off. But if she is wearing something like a dress...this provides easy access to the goods. The skimpier the dress...the easier/quicker the access.
Even if they are passed out. Since most rapes involve acquaintences and alcohol...if you and your friend are passed out and she is dressed like a scank and you're in jeans...who do you think a guy is going to target?
... I'm sure a lot of men would love to stay at home and look after their kids instead of go to the office and work for a living. You could even call this 'an extension of the matriarchy'.
This is becoming normal with the mancession we recently experienced (more men lost jobs than women). Hell, my ex is a MD and had to move back to Mo from Al recently to enter private practice. My daughter's stepdad choose to become a stay at home dad. (Sorry for ancetdotal example! lol)
At 2/5/13 11:52 PM, Saen wrote: If I had to choose a gun to protect my house and family with, my first choice would be a shotgun every time, like my mother owned while at college. Protecting my livestock? A simple bolt action rifle does just fine, like my father and relatives in Ireland used to shoot scald crows (which eat the eyes out of sheep). Hunting? A high powered scoped bolt-action rifle will do just fine. Most hunters don't even fucking venture out into the woods, they just sit in their truck on the side of the round with their semi auto and wait for the dogs to flush the deer out! How the hell is that hunting!? It's like fucking walking in the grocery store and paying 5 times the price per pound for meat! Arming myself in public? A small handgun, a revolver in my case because of it's reliability and no clunky magazines to fondle with.
* A shotgun is the most applicable to home-defense, agreed. However, depending on if you have a responsible home-defense plan (ie: retreat to a strong room) you may have to fire through a heavy wooden door. In this case, the slug or buckshot would lack the penetrating power. You might want something that shoots a fast round like an assault rifle class round...or you would want a high powered rifle.
* I know many cattlemen. We're not talking about scald crows, but coyotes and other pack animals which are small and do not require a high powered round such as most bolt-action rifles. A less powerful assault-rifle/military round is just enough power to deal with varmits. Also a lot cheaper.
* If they are hunting like you say...then:
1) They are hunting illegally. Most people in the rural I live in either shoot at poachers doing this to scare them off...or turn them in. They get arrested and loose everything in their truck.
2) In this case you want them armed with an AK-47. It is big enough to bring down a deer (unlike the AR-15), but does not have the range of high powered rifles.
Notice how a large capacity semi-automatic rifle wasn't even mentioned, but also not even the best gun for any of these scenarios? Hmmm, now what gun would be deadly accurate, have plenty and easy to load ammunition, a rate of fire equal to how fast my trigger finger is, high caliber bullets, and perfectly legal and easy for me to buy in order that I may kill as many people as I'm able in the shortest period of time?
* These guns DO NOT fire high calibur bullets.
* If you fire in the shortest period of time...you have most likely missed 90% of what you are shooting at and are out of bullets.
* The AR-15 and AK-47 are no more accurate than any hunting rifle or even .22. This is as silly of an argument as it is erroneous.
* Magazine capacity does not even correlate with a high rate of hitting anyone or body count in mass shootings.
* Typically, when assault rifle clones are used in mass shootings...you see a far less loss of life.
I know you seem to think that you are talking reason and logic...and being ignorant of firearms, these are reasonable and logical assumptions...but they are not factual points.
At 2/6/13 03:06 AM, Saen wrote: Only adds to my point. Semi-automatic weapons are a problem when you've got 30 rounds to blow off. I'd say that's pretty badass by any standard.
Not at all. Rate of fire and even how many rounds are carried in your mag are nowhere near as important as the type of ammo being fired.
In the case of military style firearms, the .223, 5.56mm, and 7.62x39mm rounds that are common for the AR-15 and AK-47 are some of the least 'badass' rounds out there. Even if you use HP rounds, the AR-15 round travels so fast it has a small chance of mushrooming.
You can buy effective hunting rounds for the AK, but these are cost prohibitive at over $1/rd compared to $0.27 for the far less lethal military round.
Again why? I have nothing against handguns, unless if you've have magazines with fucking 20+ round capacity.
Magazine capacity is, again, not the boogey man you think they are. In fact, with handguns they work against someone since they make the gun more awkward and less able to be concealed.
And again...handgun ammo comes in soft lead core, HP, and Jacketed Hollow Points for self-defense and hunting (yes, you can deer hunt with a handgun in many states...but not an AR-15 because the AR-15's .223 or 5.56mm round is deemed unethical because of its lack of killing power).
Lmao aside from the fact that our military is killing dozens of people each day in the middle east. So you depict our hypothetical war with the government as portraying our militia's fighting style similar to Al Qaeda?
The point is it is common misperception that military small arms such as assault rifles, sniper rifles, and pistols are unusually or uncommonly lethal. This is simply not true. As I have said on here ad nauseum, military ammo are prohibited from making death inevitable. This is why, for example, in Somalia we were hitting the militia fighters multiple times and they kept on fighting.
Thus, these firearms are not the killing machine menace that politicians and gun control advocates make them out to be.
Even so what good will that do against biological (starvation, plague bombs, pests, etc.), nuclear, chemical, marine, electronic, aerial, and ground warfare combined along with torture? Give me a fucking break, come back down to planet Earth.
With all due respect, just because you're a wildlife biology Sophmore/Junior at FSU does not make you an expert on CBRNe. However, being a 3E9X1 serving on a CST...I do have a certain level of professional experience on this topic.
In short:
* A hypothetically tyrannical US Govt would not use nukes domestically. It would bring in outside countries as well as making the land unusable once they are able to pacify the inhabitants.
* Torture along with too heavy of a hand when suppressing a rebellion, historically speaking, tends to actually weaken the Government's support eventually eroding it and resulting in an increased recruitment for the rebels.
* Small arms such as the AK-47 are capable of taking out low flying attack aircraft such as the AH-64 Apache (this has happened in Iraq) and the A-6 Intruder (Vietnam).
I'm not saying that victory for either side would be guaranteed. All I'm saying is that anyone who is convinced of the US military's invincibility when it comes to guerrilla warfare is grossly unaware of the military's capabilities as well as history.
At 2/5/13 05:15 AM, Iron-Claw wrote: The way I see it the only people who need guns is just an excuse to compensate...illiterate babble.... Why can't people just take up martial arts? ...blah, blah, ignorance, blah, blah... O The Irony!
So my ex-wife and current wife (both of whom weigh about 120lbs and are 5'4") should learn martial arts and that's going to help them if a brawler the size of Kimbo Slice wants to feel powerful and rape a bitch?
Tell me...how women gotta be raped just so you can feel good about your dick?
At 2/3/13 05:41 PM, TheMason wrote: * misconception
Damn, I can't talk today! lol
Should be:'miscommunication'.
And I keep getting the DP warning! NG needs an edit button!
At 2/3/13 05:32 PM, GamesArmor wrote:At 2/3/13 12:06 AM, Ceratisa wrote:Neither do I... I agree with you... Are we even talking about the same video? I was talking about the one in the OP. And yeah... other guy that quoted me... I have no idea what you are talking about.At 2/2/13 03:37 PM, GamesArmor wrote:What point is that? The video somehow suggests people who are commit ed to murdering people can't if guns aren't available. I don't think that is an accurate statement to make.
I think it's a classic misconception. You posted this right after flm posted a Youtube video from Eddie Izzard so we thought you were agreeing with the comedian.
Sorry. :)
If you watch the movie Control Room, there is this interesting segment where they talk about one of their reporters getting killed by an A-10 strike. While they talked about how unnecessary of a tragedy it was...it was their fault.
They send this reporter and a film crew to the top of this building. The reporter and crew are wearing these black, military style flack vests and helmets. The crew are on a roof with all of this equipment hanging on their shoulders.
From the footage that survives of the A-10...the guy is hitting his flares and chaff and taking evasive manuevers so he's taking fire from somewhere. So you've got a jet taking fire from small arms...so you go to the roof looking like a rocket crew?
====
Anyway, I wonder what A-J's plan is with the Current brand? I mean why buy it and shut it down? Are they going to bring the channel back only re-branded? It'll definately be interesting.
At 2/3/13 11:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote: What were you going for, anyway?
Poli Sci.
That's why if I ever complete a PhD it'll be in history!Not as easy as it sounds. Key to writing your doctoral thesis in history is finding a new idea or a new take on an idea.
Yeah, but you know there are plenty of examples of political scientists working on their dissertation and thens something happening to totally negat 2-4 years of research. (ie: the fall of the USSR and Sovietologists.)
I think I'd do something with the Korean War.
At 2/3/13 09:37 AM, theburningliberal wrote: However, that is one of the great things about our country - when you see a problem that you don't have the technical knowledge to propose a solution to, you can still advocate for change because you can find people who do have that knowledge and can use it to advance solutions.
And I agree with you. I know I am fairly entrenched in my opinion, but it is an opinion based on knowledge, fact and study.
If you, Camaro, and a few of us pro-gunners could get together and make policy we'd probably get somethings done.
Instead, there are questions of money and power. For BOTH the NRA and certain Democrats (Senators Feinstein, Schumer and Rep McCarthy) this in an opportunity to raise money and get one of their major policy agendas pushed forward.
So they use fear. You speak of the urgency of this issue. But what if I told you that the numbers actually show that violent crime is dropping...but media coverage of this 'epidemic' has increased by about 600%. By rushing into it...you ill-concieved laws that will not accomplish the objectives they were meant to accomplish.
Hell, I've been wanting this myself for years for reasons that have nothing to do with Gun Control. ...
You know as someone who is fairly fiscally conservative I've always been nervous about these programs. But as I've studied the issue of crime over the past 15 years, I've become convinced that social programs are necessary. We need to figure out how to make them more workable. But that is another discussion!
I'll agree, conditionally. At the high school level, this is certainly true. ...
Here's one of the things about the college shooter...I think there is a fundamental error in socialization that happens probably around the 6th-10th grade. This carries over into the 11th and 12th grades when people tend to 'grow-up'...these kids get left behind. This isolation and lack of social skills carry over to college.
I would invite you to look in the mirror with that statement.
I don't think I'm fear mongering. I have training in the tactical use of firearms through the military, as an USAF emergency manager making sober and realistic threat assessments is another thing I've been trained to do. So when I speak of self-defense, I speak of realities and possibilities. I'm not telling you that you need to fear your neighbor.
Let's establish something up front: No one is advocating a complete gun ban. ... there is nothing you have put forth that, in my eyes, deems a weapon like that inherently necessary for self-defense. Everything you have mentioned (in terms of being able to defend yourself from an intruder) would still be the same if you had a Mossberg 12-gauge or a Glock instead of an AR-15.
* I, personally, am not arguing necessarily they are after all of our guns. I do question why they are choosing to ban 'assault weapons' using the AR-15 (used to be the AK-47) as their poster-gun of evil. These weapons are used in 0.04% of gun murders per year. They are not the weapon of choice of criminals...even when the criminal possess one. None of the math points to a need to ban them. So why the emphasis on these guns over guns that are actually killing people? Is it just ignorance on the part of law makers...or is it part of an agenda? So while yes I do have a 'slippery slope' concern...it is not an over-arching theme of my argument. Nor do I think what I am articulating is unreasonable.
* I am getting tired of the hysteria on my side. I went to Walmart to buy .22 rounds and they are sold out of everything but shotgun shells. And even the 12 guage are sparse. There is no talk about banning ammo...let's calm down people!
* When I lived in St. Louis I was living in an old house and that was the first time I experienced a home invasion. The door was one of those old solid wood. If the guy would've actually tried to get to me and my 4 mth preggo (now ex) wife...a 12 guage or Sig (I don't like Glock! lol) would be unable to shoot through it.
* Again...the ballistics of the AR-15 or AK-47 does not support Obama's argument that they cause 'maximum damage'. A realworld study of mass shootings reveals that high-cap mags and high rates of fire do not produce the 'mass death' pro-gun 'safety' advocates claim. A study of gun crime reveals that these firearms are, statistically speaking, never used in crime. So where is the justification in banning them? A case that can be supported by anything more than emotion has yet to be made.
Stop pushing this argument that we need these weapons for self-defense, and stop pushing the argument that Obama is coming for your guns. The first is seriously questionable both on legal and ethical grounds, and the second is just plain nonsense.
2: Again...I'm not pushing that Obama is coming for all my guns. I am just opposed to his articulated policy objective of renewing the AWB. I do not think he has articulated a case that holds water.
1: I would like you to explain why you think the self-defense argument is questionable on both legal and ethical grounds. Before I tackle this, I want to make sure I know where you are coming from instead of assuming.
Conditionally agree, only because I am not sure what system the bills in consideration currently offer as a vehicle for background checks. I would like to see an individual undergoing a background check be checked not only against the FBI database, but all available criminal databases that currently exist.
Under current law, the FBI provides background checks for 30-something different states. Other states do the background checks through state agencies. The FBI background check system would get everyone on the same page. But it would require more staffing for the FBI.
I can't say I would support this. I just see too much potential for abuse here, with the possibility of a mentally deranged individual still potentially being able to acquire a gun through a family member.
Here's the thing...there is nothing that suggests that this is the case. Legal gun owners do not leave their guns to people who are prohibited from owning guns. They want to keep the firearm in the family, or pass on the monetary value to their family. If someone is prohibited from owning the gun...then it has the potential for being seized and smelted.
This is a powerful disincentive.
Under the Obama plan, this is an exception.
However, any revocation needs to be temporary and once the Doctor gives the person a thumbs up...they get their rights back.
Absolutely not. From my own experience, I can tell you that just because a doctor writes you off as no longer being a danger to society does NOT mean that you should be allowed to own and purchase a weapon....
Absolutey yes. A few years ago I saw on 60 Minutes a Mental Health Association was on there urging caution on this issue. The reason is it provides a very powerful disincentive to seek help. If you are going to loose your right to something...you are inclined to avoid help. So which is better? Allowing people to regain access after getting help? Or giving them just another reason (and fear) about getting help?
I see this every day. Many of my fellow servicemembers do not seek help for their PTSD because there is this urban myth that if they do...they will lose the ability to buy a gun.
Eh, I dunno about the age. What I would honestly like to see is guns being regulated like cars - you have to pass a written test and a practical...
Problem with that is it costs money and will divert government jobs from the social programs we were talking about. And what's the justification? I understand the concern and logic...but does it stand-up to realworld data?
At 2/3/13 05:33 AM, karlkri wrote: gun control does work if you make guns illegal. whitout gun control people would be walking around whit guns evrywhere.
You obviously have not taken the time to read through some of the most recent posts (about 1-2 pages). Maybe actually read about the issue from both sides.
Or hell, even realize that in the US in the vast majority of states...people can get concealed carry permits about as easily as a driver's license. That this has been going on for about 30 years now, and the data points to decreased crime?
Instead you opt to post a two line blurb of ignorance fueled drama.
Smart.
Considering it has taken you two years to find the politics section of NG...perhaps you need to go back to the General forums. :)
At 2/2/13 03:04 PM, theburningliberal wrote: The programs are also more interconnected now, too. It's easier and faster to insert a chart or graph into a word document using excel. Still haven't tried the other programs yet, but here's an interesting link:
Cool, I'll have to look into it. I'm more of a Word and PPT guy myself. (I love being able to include video and humorous slides into my lessons!)
At 2/2/13 03:45 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm lucky I abandoned my hopes for a PhD early on. I didn't think I could handle the pure amount of writing, so, naturally, I went to law school... (where you write a ton)
I talked to a few law students when I was in grad school. They said it was crazy competitive...people tearing pages out of library books so other students wouldn't get the info (and thereby get ahead).
But hey...they could've been exaggerating, right?
The writing doesn't bother me...I love to write (hence my very long and boring posts!)...it's the math that got me. Once we got into the higher order stats I just struggled. I understand what they are saying...just performing the operations gets me befuddled.
That's why if I ever complete a PhD it'll be in history!
At 2/2/13 12:38 PM, Fim wrote: Since a lot of what's being 'debated' here is nothing but subjective opinion, let's all take a moment to consider the transvestite view on this.
At 2/2/13 03:37 PM, GamesArmor wrote:
The video does have a point, ...
Ah...but how good of a view/point is it? What understanding does Eddie Izzard have to speak on this issue? Yeah...there is humor, but how good is the insight behind the humor?
This is what I've been talking about.
There is an objective side to this. There is science involved with ballistics and understanding the dynamics that lead to gun crime.
Now if you do not come from an understanding of guns and/or the science (hard and soft) involved...how can you know what is reasonable or what is a good point?
At 2/2/13 07:26 PM, Thecrazyman wrote:But overall...I think gun control is a distraction that won't helpsave any lives or solve any social problems.I have a lot of reasons why these solutions will go poorly as I will point out.
I agree...after all may I remind you how I left off my post.
If Gun Control in all forms goes against the Nation's Constitution, then it's simply a no-go to begin with, all they want is control and in turn it just doesn't allow people to learn about Weapon Responsibility to begin with.
I am one of the strongest proponents of gun rights on NG. However, in reading the opinions of the SCOTUS on this issue as well as the historical context of the second amendment; I do believe that there is some degree of 'gun control' premissible under the Constitution. Scalia wrote that in the case of unusual or uncommon firearms, the federal government can impose some limitations.
Now 'assault rifle' clones do fit the bill as common and usual. They are commonly and usually employed by military riflemen. Now, the 2nd Amendment exists to provide a civilian based militia defending the country...bearing arms they provide for themselves. Something else that makes them a protected class of firearm would be that there is no other firearm that can fill that role.
Handguns on the other, are not common or usual rifleman weapons. Yes, the military does use them...but their use is limited. As for self-defense, other firearms can do just as good of a job as they can. So I think that they are open to some restrictions on them. After all, they are the ones that are overwhelming used in crime...as well as being more dangerous than assault rifle clones.
The only point I'm making here is that the 'common sense' and 'reasonable' gun control being proposed...is NEITHER. They are based on fear mongering and emotion and goes against what we know about gun violence.
At 2/2/13 09:44 AM, theburningliberal wrote: Stuff
The cloud sounds awesome. I'm getting my education certificate then go back for a history masters, so I'm in the same boat with using multiple computers.
Not sure about the subscription though. I mean what happens when the four years are up? You can't keep using the program?
At 2/2/13 03:14 AM, JudgeDredd wrote:At 1/30/13 12:30 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Tentative date for new kidney set: March 1st. Just need the doctoring committee to confirm it.Ahh geez, best o' luck Cam!
You too moref*bs! (damn.. and thought i was one of the oldies here ;)
AWESOME!
Hey Mason, how's it kickin?
Yeh, haven't been around since Obama got in (..err well, since Bush departed)
Shits heating up a bit.. can't explain here but just get that feeling.. maybe it's me.
tt
Things are going good. I've shifted gears twice since '08, I went back active with the Air Guard once I got back from my deployment and didn't go back to finish my PhD.
Now I'm back in school to get my HS social studies certificate. Much better path for me.
Just been checking the Collab-thing-a-ma-jig. They prolly need few more options in the dropdowns.
Hey...hope to see you back in here sometime!
At 1/31/13 01:08 PM, CacheHelper wrote: So because Handguns are super dangerous -- larger, more powerful, guns should remain legal?
To illustrate the ignorance of this statement:
Ballistics gel test of a 5.56mm (M-16 round) If you want to fastforward to 4:32, that's where the relevent data is.
Ballistics gel test of a .45 ACP JHP round (handgun) Fastforward to about 2:30.
* The .45 does more tissue damage immediately upon entering the body than the AR-15/M-16 round does.
* The .45 is expanding almost immediately upon entry.
* The 5.56 takes about 4.24" to even start expanding.
This is why you can actually hunt deer with some handgun rounds that are considered less powerful than the AR-15...but you cannot hunt deer with a 5.56/.223 firearm in many states. It simply does not have the take-down power.
Again...not opinion but fact.
At 1/31/13 03:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This only works if you believe deterrence is the primary goal, and primary effect of the current penal system.
Also, most criminals are past the age where this would be that effective of a punishment. In fact, with some who come from abusive homes the humiliation could make them either go from petty crime to violent or in the case of misdemeanor domestic violence...take the violence up a level or two.
I, for one, do not. Incapacitation is the primary goal and primary effect of the penal system. Criminals, espeically ones who have already 'broken the seal' are prone to doing it again, regardless of the punsihment. What benefit incarceration has is that the crimnal is physically incapable of committing more crimes (on the general public) for that period of time.
I agree. When criminals serve their time they come out of prison with the same lack of skills...or what skill they had going in have degraded (hell...the people who made Skyrim know this!).
I think we should make education and job skills part of serving one's prison sentence. If you go in without a high school diploma...you have a prison high school (not GED) program. If you've got that...perhaps you leave with an associate's degree. Find jobs and offer economic incentives to employers to intern trustee prisoners so that they can develope a work history that could mitigate the fact that they have a prison history.
We've got to do something real...and not just show-boat ideas that do nothing more than get some politician name recognition!
At 2/1/13 06:44 PM, theburningliberal wrote: I might be showing the fact that I am a college student, but has anyone seen the new MSOffice 365?
No. Is it worth getting?
At 2/2/13 12:19 AM, TheMason wrote: Dude, there are public health papers on this question that read like criminology, sociology and economic papers from 20 years ago when researchers were looking into this.
Oops...
Should read:
"...that read like criminology, sociology and economic papers from 20 years ago when those researchers were first looking into this.
At 2/1/13 06:12 PM, Feoric wrote:
That's not knowing. That's assuming, based on a paper published 20 years ago.
Simply.
Not.
True.
See in the intervening 20 years this issue has been studied by about 200 different universities. And yes...it has included some public health professionals.
Pretty much most of the research comes up with either negative correlations or inconclusive relationships. The research is not 20 years old...but spans the entirity of the past two decades.
Asking the question isn't a contribution, the work is the contribution. Scientists ask themselves the same questions over and over until they get an answer, but asking the question is only one half of the process. Sometimes the things they thought were true turns out not to be true as more and more work gets done and more and more questions get answered.
Again...there is a point where you look at the volumes of research and data and realize that all the indicators are pointing in the same direction. Perhaps we need to look somewhere else.
Afterall, Einstein said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. While verification is a good and necessary part of the scientific method...at some point repitition becomes wasteful.
Now hang on just a second, the question of what are the causes of gun violence and how do we prevent it are questions that have been answered with absolute certainty? I certainly don't think so. Those are the two things he's asking the CDC to investigate. They may find an answer. They may not. Again, I fail to see any reason in preventing the CDC from investigating the issue. More light has been shed on the issue, sure, but that's a far cry from answered.
Actually...the question about the causal relationship between gun violence and guns has been shown over and over again to be either a spurious correlation or barely significant link. I'm sorry...but when the best p-value you can get is just at or just over the 0.05 level of significance; it's time to bark up another tree.
Furthermore, as time goes one you can see a negative correlation between guns and crime. In CCW states we now have data sets of realworld data that span over 30 years that does show that concealed carry is one of the statistically significant causal factors of lower crime rates. We also see the gun supply increasing...but crime nationwide dropping percipitiously. Since 1904 as guns have progressed from revolvers, bolt actions and lever actions to today's semi-auto 1911ish pistols, tactical shotguns, and assault rifle clones...accidental deaths have dropped by 95% despite the gun supply increasing.
As a consumer product guns there are about 50M more guns than there are cars...and yet cars kill more people than guns despite cars requiring extensive training and licensing to operate.
Quite simply, it is irrelevent what either one of us believes: the math and science is determinate and the causal question has been answered.
We know that the causes are economic, social and educational. Therefore wasting money on extensive new gun legislation such as an AWB and hi-cap magazine ban would divert money from prevention efforts that would make a difference. And if you want to study the issue further...why give it to people who will start at square one? Or at least 20 years behind? Why not give it to people who are far more versed and specialized in fields that are particularly relevent to the question...instead you are insisting that we give it to researchers who are tangentally related to the disciplines best able to answer the questions.
I mean your insistence on this matter is dumbfounding. When you need surgery do you go to a pathologist...afterall they are both MDs? No...you go to a surgeon. But on this issue, which you claim there is ignorance on (despite research coming out over the past 20 years from over 200 universities)...you're doing the social science/PhD equivalent of just that!
I don't know what it will offer, let them do the work and we'll find out.
Dude, there are public health papers on this question that read like criminology, sociology and economic papers from 20 years ago when researchers were looking into this. They are either going to come up with the same results...or they are going to come up with different results because of flawed methodological practices or less skill in the area of statistical inquiry.
Then the people who know what they are doing are going to point out their mistakes and send them back to the kid's table. And how much money will we have wasted?
How many people will be dead because we wasted money on useless research that could've gone to inner-city jobs or educational programs?
In response to your second post, this is all I really have to say: You don't kill all the research if you just think there are problems in it, you propose ways to change the research. We might learn that guns actually reduce violence. Or that guns reduce violence in certain case, but increase it in another. But we can't know that for sure unless we continue to have long term studies, and the CDC is set up to do just that. If the results of studies of gun violence sides with gun control or the complete opposite, then that's just the scientific process at work. The CDC should be a part of that process.
*sigh* I'm not talking about killing the research.
* I'm saying if you're going to do the research...give the money to social scientists who are funded through the NSF and NOT the CDC. These are the guys who are trained on advanced statistical techniques that have been fine tuned to address just these sorts of questions.
* Social scientists have been looking into this issue, we do not operate in the vaccum of ignorance which you seem to be implying we currently have.
* Since social scientists have been looking into this for the past 20 years...we have also resolved many methodological issues along the way. Bringing people in whose training emphasizes other things over social science methodology will only CAUSE methodological problems instead of solving them.
* We have long-term studies going back to 1987. We have access to FBI, state, and even CDC data sets. We already have scientifically rigorous, long-term studies. I am not saying we need to stop it. I'm just saying that you've got people who are immensly more qualified to conduct the research who are being cut out of the research money.
* The scientific process is already at work and is currently being done by people who are competent and the best suited for this research. Bringing the CDC in brings in less qualified researchers in who will do nothing more than spin their wheels and waste time, money and effort when we could be putting those resources to use in areas that will actually save lives.
At 2/1/13 12:34 PM, Feoric wrote: The difference here is that the FBI does not focus on researching public health issues. The CDC has been collecting this information for decades. Demonstrate to me how the CDC does not have complete and nuanced datasets, and that their researchers are lacking in expertise and are incapable of investigating the problem, and demonstrate that this is not due to a lack of funding. Having insufficient data because you've been prevented from researching a topic for 20 years != incapable of doing the research.
1) This is not a public health issue. It is more of a sociological and economic issue.
2) It is a stretch to make this a public health issue which, de facto means that having an epidemiologist working on this means you have someone who has some training in stats and the social sciences but no speicalization in social science methodology. Instead, they look at things like disease screening, being CSI for outbreaks, pathologies, and clinical trials.
The simple answer it is not in their training, and they are out of their depth. I've read studies by these guys on this topic...and their methodology is so sloppy as to be comical.
I'll give you an example. Someone poste a public health approach to whether or not the methodology used to determine the number of DGUs (Defensive Gun Uses) were appropriate. They used the method of determining DGUs (surveys) to determine how many times they were used criminally...all without doing surveys themselves. Furthermore...they did not seem to grasp that often in social science you have to compare survey data to realworld data (something that the hard sciences, with the exception of climatology, has a hard time grasping).
The end result was a paper that did not prove anything, posing as serious research that was making some sort of contribution.
@ Feoric
Yes there is a way to know before they do the work...it's called the work has been done. See this is a norm in social science inquiry. Has the question been thoroughly researched? If so...then asking the same question over and over again does not make any contribution to any body of scientific knowledge.
I agree with you that for the past 20 years the CDC has not done anything with this question. But guess what? That does not mean that nothing has been done and some of the questions Obama is asking for...have already been answered. We are not suffering from ignorance.
That's the point I'm trying to make. The questions have already been answered and examined. Furthermore, what data sets the CDC has...are available for other (and better trained specialists) researchers to study. Along with FBI data sets and a whole host of other data sets.
I'm not convinced that diverting money to people who haven't conducted research on this topic for 20 years is wise when , if you want more research, there are better ways of distributing the money.
Why is starting at square 1 such a good idea?
What will it offer?
At 1/31/13 04:15 PM, theburningliberal wrote: Just throwing this out there... With a TX prosecutor shot dead, a school shooting near Atlanta, 8 shootings at 5 gun shows on Gun Appreciation Day, and a variety of other well publicized shootings, something has got to change.
I agree with you that one murder is one murder too many. I think your emotion and intentions are well meaning and noble, and I respect them. But we cannot let ourselves make public policy based upon emotions and good intentions.
We also have to realize that these events are rare. Violent crim,e along with gun crime, is dropping. It is not getting worse as one would assume from watching the news.
I would strongly encourage those of you who have not supported gun control in the past to rethink your positions.
Here's the thing, although I am a shooter and collector...my opposition to gun control is not rooted in this. Instead, it is rooted in the knowledge I have gained studying this issue as a political scientist for my entire adult life.
If giving up guns would result in even one life saved...I would. But it won't. There is nothing in the social science accomplished on this issue that indicates that the public policy we need to pursue is extensive strengthening of gun control. This is not to say that there is no room for improvement, and I'll get to that in a moment.
But what I'd recommend is policies that will increase funding for programs that will increase economic opportunities for urban minorities. I'd also recommend increased funding for education in poor districts...with no strings attached by the federal government.
We also need to reform our educational reform. I'm not usually a fan of Noam Chomsky, but he has made some very convincing arguments that the educational reform of the past 20 years (with which there has been a quintrupling of school shooting) has created a culture of political, mental and social violence that breeds these shootings. Accountability schemes have made it where there is no intellectual freedom and problems/questions only have one correct answer. Zero tolerance policies lead to labeling of kids as trouble makers, bigots, etc when all they are trying to do is find out how they socialize with each other and what is socially acceptable. This leads to the very isolation that more often than not triggers the instinct to carry out a ceremonial suicide/sacrifice ritual.
We also need to come up with some sort of rite of passage which brings people into the larger community.
In the end, I have thought about this...a lot. The thing is, the gun-control side (now trying to, humorously, re-brand themselves as pro-gun safety)...does not bring much to the debate that is all that intellectually rigorous.
And, for some of you, that could prove to be very helpful, especially if you disagree with the Obama plan on gun control. What other ideas do you have? It's not enough on this issue to just say no, you need to come up with some kind of alternative. The status quo clearly is not working.
First of all, I would like to see both sides drop the fear mongering. And yes this includes Obama. A few points:
* He needs to drop two pieces of rhetoric: The first is the line about parents needing to feel secure when they drop their kids off at 1st grade. He needs to instead re-assure parents that schools are safe. The odds of your child dying at school due to an act of violence is 1 in 1,000,000. Source He also needs to drop the line about "saving just one life". Check out the numbers:
* About 30-40K people die due to guns per year (the rate is continously getting lower than car deaths).
- For 2,000, 2005, 2008 & 2009 the average is 9,377
- Average accidents: 600
- The remainder tends to be suicides.
* There are an estimated 750K-2.25M defensive gun uses/year that involve someone merely displaying or announcing the presence of the gun...resulting in the bad guy fleeing with no one getting hurt!
-This means that in the 31 days since the start of 2013 between 63,674 - 191,095 burglaries, home invasions, rapes, assaults and murders have peacefully and without injury. At the low of this estimate (as calculated by researchers who favor stricter gun control) lives have already been saved because of guns.
* By describing civilian clones of assault rifles as weapons that belong only on the battlefield is intellectually vacuous. It displays the president's own ignorance on this topic. As well as when he discusses military ammo as designed to inflict 'maximum damage'. These are falsehoods, so either the president is speaking from the heart unaware of his own ignorance on this topic...or he is repeating a lie designed to elicit the maximum emotional appeal.
-One as I've said numerous times before...these firearms are not near as deadly as they are made out to be. In fact the AR-15's round is illegal for use in many state because of just how little damage it does.
As for my solutions...
As I stated above...I would not waste money on new laws that will target guns like the AR-15 or AK-47 which are not used in crime because of just how ineffective they are. Instead those dollars could go to social programs that will help the poor and undereducated avoid a life of crime.
BACKGROUND CHECKS
* Make it so that background checks through the FBI is mandatory in all states.
* Provide low cost background checks for individuals selling firearms to other people...whether through craigslist, gun shows, or word of mouth.
* Make an exemption for guns that are passed between family members.
* Expand it to a mental health check. This is tricky because there are serious privacy issues. What I enviion is a court process involving the patient and doctor. However, any revocation needs to be temporary and once the Doctor gives the person a thumbs up...they get their rights back.
AGE TO PURCHASE A HANDGUN
I think I could be convinced to up the age to buy a handgun to 25. There appears to be a spike around 19-24 yo, and as long as we keep the right to own long guns like shotguns...they maintain the right to defend themselves.
Those might be meaningful.
But overall...I think gun control is a distraction that won't helpsave any lives or solve any social problems.
