Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/24/13 04:05 AM, EdyKel wrote: I get a little annoyed when people shove a wall of stats at me. ...

Click on my links. The stats I presented come from sources such as government collected crime data, police reporting, and academic studies using scientific methods in their research. On this last one, I tend to look at studies from academic journals rather than something at a NRA, GOA, Handgun Control Inc, etc website.

Also, if you want scientific answers and to actually understand the problem in all of its complexity...you need to learn not to be annoyed by stats.

As for your point about 'funding'. This is getting a little conspiratorial. Yes, the Olin Foundation has funded research. But they are not as involved in the conducting of that research as you think. I've lived in that world, I know what I'm talking about. It takes 4yrs of undergrad and 5yrs of grad school to get a PhD in the relevant fields. Then you build a reputation that takes even more time to get the reputation to pull in those research grants. So as long as the researcher is employed by a university and not a company or organziation...you can trust it.

I'm sure you are up to date with all the data, and I assume that much of it is fairly accurate. ... I know as heck that you lack objectiveness in your views on firearms. That's a given. I don't mind the stereotypes, or your use of "you people", all that does is reconfirms my views about you, and your data.

BIAS
ME: Yes I have a bias on this issue. I will not deny this. However, there are two antidotes to bias: admitting it and knowledge. I let the data guide me. This is why I'm against the AWB in its entirety. However, I would go for a 7 round limit on handgun magazines. I would also be willing to accept legislation (especially on the state level) that requires more requirements than just age to buy a pistol. Make it where a person has to have a CCP in order to buy a handgun. This is where the data leads me.

YOU: First of all, you need to grow a thicker skin. I never said "you people". What I was speaking of was the arguments you specifically were making in the context of the larger arguments of the gun control crowd you echo. Furthermore, I do not stereotype; I'm discussing your ideas. The closest I get to stereotyping is when I bring up that in my experience, most pro-gun-control people are not shooters and do not have a realistic understanding of the capabilities of firearms.

You may want to do some introspection because reading through your post...time and time again you talk about data "making no sense" or going against "common sense" or being "illogical". You refer to a shooter friend of yours as a "gun nut", but how much do you know about firearms? Can you define the following terms and concepts?
Intermediate rounds
Magnum rounds
Full Metal Jacket
Jacketed Hollow Point
Hollow Point
Soft Lead Core
Muzzle Velocity
Barrel shroud
Grenade launcher (as sold to the civilian market)

You know, through my own research, ...

- The research is out there and it is not hard to find, if you attend college. Use the libraryâEUTMs websearch tools to find scholarly journals on the subject. If not in college, perhaps your local library has access to websearches such as Ebesco which will let you pull-up full-length articles. Also, do not look for a single, simple answer. This is a complex issue with many moving parts. You will not find a silver bullet that will make these things go away.

- Your bias is sneaking in here by dismissing the research as âEU~sillyâEUTM. In fact, it is logical and in line with human nature. See most criminals are out to make an easy score, they are not looking for trouble. So the greater the chance a potential victim will be armed and able to resist; the more likely the criminal will choose another target or not move into an area where more people have guns.

- As you know IâEUTMm a member of the gun community. That gangs and drugs are the reasons for the majority of gun violence is something that makes sense and is accepted. This is another piece of the puzzle. Things like CCP has an effect on crimeâEU¦however it will not reduce it to zero by itself. Same with drugs and gangs. Social programs that address why people choose âEU~thug lifeâEUTM over legal means of employment will most likely save thousands of lives per yearâEU¦but will not save every life.

Oh, and you might want to look for other reasons for the decrease in gun violence. Nothing makes your research more moot than ignoring other possibilities, or other data, you might feel has no bearing on your conclusion. But that refusal, or self inflected ignorance, only makes you sound like a pompous ass. I don't mind giving you the same treatment. And don't try to compound your information together, alright? That just irritates me. And it's incredibly dishonest. I'm mean, like this one: "These decreases are more evident in states with less gun control and more related to economic factors than guns or prisons" A few things that automatically cross my mind is that every state is different. They don't all have the same economic problems, or the same population density - and all the problems that go along with them. And Gary Kleck was notorious for using surveys as a basis for his research. Basing it on small sample from willing participants, and hoping they understand the wording of those surveys, and don't exaggerate their responses, is one of the biggest problems to that type of research based study.

- UmâEU¦I do that. Scroll through my posts and youâEUTMll find that IâEUTMve been making the argument that gun violence is actually caused by the social, economic, and educational factors that lead to involvement in everything from petty crime to organized crime. I HAVE explored other possibilities.

- What does it matter if something irritates you, as long as it is within the norms of scientific inquiry? Let me demonstrate why when I say: These decreases are more evident in states with less gun control and more related to economic factors than guns or prisonsâEU¦it is acceptable.
* While every state is different, there are still population clusters that share the same basic problems and similar social make-up.
* Gangs and the drug trade operate trans-state boundaries. LA gangs such as the Bloods and Crips now operate in practically every state.
* You make comparisons between states that have very similar make-ups, or you just look at cities.
So yes, there are some methodological concerns, but cross-state studies are a norm in social science and perfectly acceptable and considered to be intellectually honest.

- KleckâEUTMs research adheres to scientific norms for the type of research question he was conducting. Defensive Gun Use is under reported because police do not track that data in a way that can be compiled across jurisdictions. Therefore, survey is an accepted way of conducting research. Furthermore, small sample size is a scientific norm not only in the social sciences, but the hard sciences as well. You can make accurate extrapolations from less than 1% of the population. Finally, all participants in any social scientific research project must be willing.

And what does being a Democrat have to do with his research?

My point was that Kleck does not fit the mold/stereotype you are trying to create. Furthermore, it also helps guage where his level of bias is on the subject. Just as if I ever publish on this topic I have to include a statement on my political beliefs, and connection to guns.

@ EdyKel

Also, you really do not want to use prisons as reason for a decrease in crime. Prisons are actually part of the problem. See you send someone to jail for something nonviolent such as prostitution, shoplifting, or a pot charge you give them a permanent record that makes it difficult for them to find suitable employment with a criminal record.

But hey at least they get skills inside the slammer right? One of the things we've found is that inmates learn important skills like networking and how to committ more serious crimes. So when they leave prison they've effectively graduated from Crime U. So when their record keeps them from becoming productive citizens...they can graduate to more serious crimes.

This too needs to be reformed if we want to make substantive gains in terms of preventing violent crime.

This leads to my next point: The understanding of gun violence in this country is a joke, made worse with the propaganda from groups like the NRA. Gun violence in this country has a lot to do with drugs, race, and inequality. ...

At this point, you need to realize that you are guilty of the âEU~strawman fallacyâEUTM. I am not a member of the NRA. My opinion on this matter is informed by my military training, and experience with firearms on the civilian side, and my academic background. So pleaseâEU¦argue against what I am sayingâEU¦not the NRA.

That saidâEU¦

Guess what? I agree with much you just said. The problem is your conclusion is incorrect. The reduction in crime has been shown by multiple academic studies at major Universities (not the NRA) that show there is no causal relationship between strict gun control laws and any reduction in crime. There is a very slight negative relationship (ie: as one variable goes up the other goes down) between guns and crime (ie: more legal guns, less crime).

What the causes of crime are:
* Economic factors.
* Educational factors.
* A high degree of ethnic and linguistic stratificationâEU¦especially where there are one or more minorities that are treated as second class citizens with reduced economic and educational opportunities.

If you read through what I have posted here (and including my original post to you) youâEUTMll see that the core of my argument is two-fold:

A) Assault weapons are rarely used in crime, and when used they do not have the effect articulated by fear-mongering gun control advocates.

B) Further gun control measures will funnel money, manpower, and other resources into law enforcement solutions to gun crimesâEU¦which will only be marginally more effective. Instead, our efforts should be aimed at solving the social, economic, and educational problems that spawn inequality of education and economic opportunity (which makes drugs and gangs a viable lifestyle/career choice).

You, gun control politicians, ands activists are nibbling around the margins of the problem talking about saving either one life or hundreds. IâEUTMm talking about the potential to save thousands.

The NRA use to believe in regulating firearms, but that changed during that period of time. Before that time period, the 2nd amendment was rarely used as an argument against gun control. It's why no one batted an eye over machine guns, and other excessive arms, being made illegal to purchase. And everyone knew that minorities in inner cities were killing each other off. I'll let you draw your own conclusion on what I am implying.

Umm...no. I've been around about 40 years, and the 2nd amendment argument has been around for all four decades of my life.

But speaking as a gun owner, I do not want regulation that is judged to be 'common sense', 'reasonable', or 'logical' by people who are ignorant of firearms or even the nature of gun crime in this country. Because once you get into the data their common sense, reason, and logic dissolve. Things like assault rifles and high capacity magazines become targets which would only marginally effect gun crime.

What it comes down to is that many on your side of this issue lack the moral courage to tackle the social issues surrounding gun crime. Gun control is easy from a political perspective and requires no real courage to address.

So we get calls for 'common sense', 'reasonable', and 'logical' laws that would lack one thing: effectiveness.

CONCLUSION
This study is not the most rigorous. I would of course clean it up for submission to a scientific journal, but for NG I think it is informative. The results show that military style firearms such as the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza are not the typical gun selected by spree shooters. This is in-line with findings from the Census Bureau, Chicago Police Department, and academics on firearm crime in particular. According to the Census of the 31,059 murders committed by firearms (the types of which were reported/identified) in âEUTM00, âEUTM05, âEUTM08, and âEUTM09: 89% were committed by handguns, 5% by rifles, and 6% by shotguns. [5] In 2012, of the 7,500 firearms confiscated by the Chicago Police Department only 300 (or 4%) were assault rifles. This was 9x the number confiscated by NYPD and 3x what the LAPD confiscated. [6] Finally, a University of Pennsylvania study found that the 1994 AWB did not have an impact on reducing the frequency of military style assault rifles in crime because these firearms were rarely used in crime before the ban. The only area that the 1994 AWB was marginally effective in was reducing crime committed with large capacity magazines (LCMs) for handguns. However, this effect was lessened by several factors: 1) Most exchanges of gun fire only used about 3 shots, 2) the law did not confiscate magazines already in private hands, 3) the law did not prohibit the sale of LCMs that had already been manufactured, 3a) LCMs are not serially controlled making proving the date of manufacture difficult, and 4) the influx of new LCMs since 2004 would make future bans even less effective. [7]
My findings are in keeping with what is understood by government and academic sources: that rifles (inclusive of assault rifles) are not commonly used in crime. In the case of spree shootings, the criminal is more likely to choose an assault rifle more than the common street criminal. However, their use does not make the act of spree shooting more lethal. Considering that military ammo is, by international law, designed to be less than lethal and high rates of fire mean less accuracy and thus less people hit; assault weapons may give victims of spree shooters a higher chance of survival.

Actually...studies time and time again show that concealed carry leads to a drop in crime.

Also once you get past the descriptive stats and start doing in-depth statistical analysis...the correlation between guns and gun crime shows no causal relationship.

Furthermore, the gun-control crowd use these incidents to push new gun control laws. These laws (advertised as 'common sense' or 'reasonable') are not going to be effective since they do not address the causes of gun crime nor do they address the guns actually being used in crime since military style rifles account for less than 1% of guns used to commit crimes or result in death.

Finally, these proposals are counterproductive since they take money, manpower, and attention from solve the economic and educational problems that lead to gangs being a viable lifestyle option.

There's a lot of studies, mostly funded by the very industry that benefits from their findings. The NRA saw to that with the laws they lobbied in congress for in the beginning of this century, ones that made it illegal for any taxpayer money to fund gun violence studies.

What the law did was take this away from the CDC. Taxpayer money still goes to these studies, just through the National Science Foundation. The difference is the money goes to political scientists, economists, and criminologists. The researchers at the CDC are public health scientists and focused on hard science research methodologies and lack the depth of statistical research methodology that a social scientist possesses.

Let me bring up a few other points, which are not often pointed out by the gun community - They have a long list of cherry picked data they don't like to stray far from, after all:

OkayâEU¦this will be fun. :)

Our laws over machine guns (fully automatics), or other extremely illegal, or hard to buy, arms, have done pretty well up to this point.

I do not stray away from this at all. In factâEU¦it kind of proves my point. The law was only effective at reducing crime from one firearm: the M1928 (AKA: Tommy Gun). This was the first submachine gun, it is a very heavy gun that fires .45 acp pistol rounds. The heaviness of the gun combined with the lower recoil of using a pistol round makes this a gun that can be reasonably controlled at a high rate of fire. Also, it could be ordered through the mail (ie: SearâEUTMs Catalogue).
See, a fast rate of fire is not necessarily a good thing for the shooter. You run out of ammo. Also, in the case of assault rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47sâEU¦you only have a chance of hitting someone during the first three rounds when firing at full-auto. The rest will be fired relatively harmlessly into the air or ceiling.

These guns are no longer conducive to the commission of crime. This is one reason why criminals, who have a choice between assault rifle clone (and often âEU~military gradeâEUTM firearms) choose either a handgun or shotgun. They are inaccurate when firing full-auto, hard to conceal, and overall ineffective.

So sureâEU¦making guns that are not conducive to crime harder to get will appear effective at keeping these weapons from being used in crime!

The whole CC thing about it lowering crime in this country is a myth. Lower crime rates have been happening since the mid 80 to 90's, across the country. This time was also marked by the original Assault weapon ban, and other gun control laws. Personally, I attribute the decline to the rise of more laws, more police, and the biggest prison systems in the world (China comes in 2nd, and they have a billion more people than us).

UmâEU¦no.

* Gary Kleck (a PhD criminologist out of Florida, self-described liberal Democrat, and non-NRA member) found that states with CCW (and other loose laws) saw a higher rate of decrease in crime across the board than the national average and those states with more strict gun control laws.

* Kleck (and you yourself) found that the decrease in the crime rate preceeded the gun controls of the 1990s. These decreases are more evident in states with less gun control and more related to economic factors than guns or prisons.

* The AWB sunset in 2004, and the rate of murder (according to the FBI) has continued its steep decline. [8]

* Not to mention the U of Pa study (sourced previously) that shows only a marginal impact of the AWB on gun crimeâEU¦and this only in relation to a specific type of high capacity magazine.

At 3/23/13 03:03 AM, EdyKel wrote:

At 3/22/13 05:40 PM, TheMason wrote: So far, the gun-control crowd has yet to show where assault weapons pose a clear and present danger/threat to public safety.

Haven't they? Or, do you just ignore it? I say that anyone who can become a one man army, capable of killing dozens of people in mere minutes, in surprise attacks, in very public areas, are on on par to any terrorist you find in the world. I mean, we make buying such firearms, and accessories, easy to do in this country. And what reason do people have to purchase these firearms, which are very comparable to ones you find on the battlefield, and continue to evolve in that direction, strangling the line that was drawn over fully-automated machine guns?There is no reason, other than desire to own, and other less desirable human traits. Certainly it's not about defense. So these types types of firearms, and accessories, are easily available to anyone, including the wrong hands.

They have articulated an argumentâEU¦yes. However, it is not all that valid of an argument.
LetâEUTMs start with the underlying argument that these are âEU~battlefieldâEUTM firearms. The implication is that military weapons are uncommonly lethal killing machines. A common refrain is that these are firearms specifically designed to effectively kill humans; something that is not true of hunting or self-defense firearms. The reality is this argument is false and have things reversed.

According to international law, specifically the Hague Convention of 1899, combatants are not allowed to use projectiles (bullets) that âEUoeâEU¦bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions.âEU[1] The convention specifically attributes this to the principles of the 1868 Declaration of St. Petersburg which stated that the goal of war was to âEUoeâEU¦weaken the military forges of the enemyâEU¦âEU and that military firearms should not make âEUoeâEU¦death inevitableâEU. [2]

This means that of all the different firearm typesâEU¦military firearms are the only ones specifically designed to minimize their lethality.

So the notion that these firearms are designed for the battlefield is not a valid argument for these firearms being an uncommon or unusual threat to public safety.

You also make the argument that these firearms make an individual a âEU~one man armyâEUTM with the capability of âEU~killing dozens of people in mere minutesâEUTM.

I am a servicemember, and have been trained on these firearms by the Air Force and Army. I am a hunter, and shot competitively in college. Recently IâEUTMve begun re-loading which has really increased my knowledge of ballistics. Finally, I am a political scientist with a graduate degree and have spent much of my adult life studying this issue.

From my experience, you (as well as others who share your opinion) overestimate what these firearms are capable of. The caliber of ammo used by Adam Lanza in Newtown is not that effective at killing. Remember, most of his victims were small children who are exceptionally susceptible to trauma. He also had to hit his victims multiple times, according to the Medical Examiner he hit most of them 6-11 times. Conversely, Cho at Virginia Tech fired about 100 rounds, hitting many of his victims only 1-2 times. He killed 33 and injured 17. He did this with a 9mm and a .22. The difference is he did not use rapid fire and he used ammo specifically designed to kill rather than the military ammo Lanza most likely used.

Then I thought I should look into the trends and not on anecdotal examples. So I used the time line Think Progress [3]recently published as well as the list created by Wikipedia. [4] My findings (since 1984):

HANDGUNS
Handguns have been used in 83% of spree shootings. In 49% of spree shootings the shooter choose to only use a handgun. In shootings where only a handguns was used, the average kill rate was 12 deaths per event. On average 8 people were injured in these types of shootings. In all, handgun only spree shootings are responsible for 185 deaths and 134 injuries.

SHOTGUNS
There were no shotgun only incidents. I did not have the time to find and dig through Law Enforcement and Medical Examiner reports in the number of shootings where a shooter used more than one type of gun. This is one limitation of this quick and dirty study.

RIFLES
Rifles have been used in 34% of spree shootings. In 14% of spree shootings they were the only firearm used. In these latter shootings the average kill rate was 9 deaths per event. The average number of wounded was 12. In all rifle only spree shootings are responsible for 49 deaths and 61 injuries.

Several of these spree shooters selected rifles that fired 9mm or .45 acp handgun ammo which is available in a greater variety of types that are more lethal than those available to AR-15 and AK-47 shooters. This may skew the results towards what is seen handgun sprees. A more robust study that includes an analysis of calibers used in spree shootings as well as increasing the dataset to parse out how many were killed/injured by each type of firearm in the spree shootings that involved multiple firearm types.

It is also worth noting that before the Newtown Shooting, the number of deaths incurred by rifle only sprees only averaged 6. The Lanza shooting may be an outlier because he choose a target exceptionally susceptible to trauma and he may not have utilized spray & pray shooting instead opting for the more effective stalking and aiming at his victims.

[cont]

At 3/22/13 03:28 PM, BeProf wrote: Except that McDonald v. Chicago established conclusively that the 14th Amendment specifically prevents cities and states from restricting the individual 2nd Amendment right (as established in District of Columbia v. Heller.)

Yes...but what was at issue in McDonald v. Chicago was Chicago's registration laws. It also expanded Heller to apply to the states (since DC is not a state). However, it also reaffirmed that the government can restrict types of firearms.

At 3/22/13 01:14 PM, EdyKel wrote: There's nothing unconstitutional about it. State and government have the right to regulate firearms, as they see fit. As long as they don't take away firearms, or prevent the sales of all firearms, they are allowed to trim back what can be sold on the marketplace for public safety reasons.

Yes...but there has to be a demonstrable threat to public safety by unusual and uncommon weapons.

So far, the gun-control crowd has yet to show where assault weapons pose a clear and present danger/threat to public safety.

I always find the argument that people say about gun laws not working quaint. They're basically saying with it that they don't care about the public, and that freely selling certain types of firearms, or accessories, into as many hands as possible - regardless of how unhinged, or desperate they are - will somehow lead to less gun violence. All I see in that is a lot sales for the gun industry, with nothing being solved, but free national promotions for firearms sales after massacres happen.

Actually...studies time and time again show that concealed carry leads to a drop in crime.

Also once you get past the descriptive stats and start doing in-depth statistical analysis...the correlation between guns and gun crime shows no causal relationship.

Furthermore, the gun-control crowd use these incidents to push new gun control laws. These laws (advertised as 'common sense' or 'reasonable') are not going to be effective since they do not address the causes of gun crime nor do they address the guns actually being used in crime since military style rifles account for less than 1% of guns used to commit crimes or result in death.

Finally, these proposals are counterproductive since they take money, manpower, and attention from solve the economic and educational problems that lead to gangs being a viable lifestyle option.

At 3/18/13 03:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

But because of this.

The inference that all Muslims are terrorists (yes, the ONLY Muslim Peter ever really spends time with being a terrorist is pretty suggestive of this point.)

But it is an inference that is specifically dispelled at the end when they mention that the majority of middle-class Muslims who are not terrorists in the community will now be scrunitized. Oh...then there is also the plot point that they are using Peter because since he is white they will be able to get past security who uses a color swab sample of skin color to let him pass.

So the overall point may actually be about racially charged overreactions to Muslim extremism.

True. He does. But what I think makes this different than South Park is the how. Family Guy makes their offensive jokes in a on eliner format, and rarely takes any such thing longer than that (though it has happened). ... The repurtations make a difference here too. While both shows have the reputation of being edgy, South Park was built 100% of pushing as many envelopes as far as they possibly could and in extremely in your face manner. Family guy is more known for shotgunning inane humor that sometmes contains an offensive joke and rarely an offensive line of jokes.

They have done this on several occassions with hot-button topics such as:
* Anti-semetism, where they have used Jewish stereotypes to make fun of anti-semetic racists.
* Abortion.
* When Cleveland was on the show, he was perhaps the most stable and least flawed character between Peter and his friends. Peter is a buffoon. Quagmire is the sex-crazed single dude. Joe is the aggressive cop with a chip on his shoulder.

So while yes, most of FG's style is shotgunning political humor in non sequitors into the plot...they have tackled political issues as the main plot before. So I think this point fails because while not their predominate MO...it is something they have a history of tackling.

I think there is a difference between things that should honestly be offensive and things that are based in humor and even people just trying to communicate.

There shouldn't be a difference, as if we made such a difference the latter would lose much of its value. South Park has been largely dulled by the incessant offensiveness, but every now and then the show gets people talking, which is exactly what Stone and Parker want. They want to not only mock their target, but expose it and put it in the spotlight. If we take out the offensiveness when we know it's done for humor, we end up robbing the spotlight and the exposition of the topic, leaving only mocking which takes away much of the point.

And I think FG tries to do that. Furthermore, that they do these occassional episodes in which something like abortion, anti-semetism, and now Muslim stereotypes...they can be a little more effective since not every show tries to carry a message like SP does.

In the end, if we try to stamp out things that are offensive then we just end up living in a society ruled by the Thought Police.

At 3/19/13 09:23 AM, poxpower wrote: Then realize you're using all the exact same arguments that morons use to link violence in media with school shootings.

Yes, that's moronic because that never happens. Nor has the FBI found this to be a common link in a quarter of school shootings. (NOTE: this is roughly how common rifles of any type are used in shooting sprees...and yet we have Senators, liberal pundits, and several state legislatures going after assault rifles.)

At 3/20/13 12:14 AM, Feoric wrote: I did not know that! Thanks for the correction. Do you know if Syria has any of chemical weapons that would have similar effects as far as the injuries/odors being reported go?

Honestly, at this point no. I haven't paid that much attention to the Syrian military.

I don't think we're gonna know for sure right now, but I'm willing to bet people in high places have a better idea of what happened. CNN is reporting that the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said there is a "high probability" that Assad's forces used chemical weapons. I don't know what intel he's basing this on, but I suspect there's some communications going on with the Israelis.

I'm not ready to say that it is definately a CW attack. Afterall, it could be several things:
* A chemical spill from either a civilian accident (ie: traffic) or an attack accidently caused a spill.
* Terrorists got a hold of some sort of industrial chemical and turned it into a CW agent.
* Assad used something.

If you've got rumblings from that high up, then I would lend credence. We're probably getting intel from numerous sources.

It's interesting to note that not only will Obama be in the region tomorrow, but Carl Levin (who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee) and Lindsey Graham are both chiming in as far as intervention goes, so I guess be prepared to put on your tinfoil hat in the upcoming days.

Yeah...it's a scary mess.

At 3/19/13 05:10 PM, Feoric wrote:

AJ also has a good point:

"Victims spoke of pungent smell. Chemical weapons are usually odourless."

The quoted doctor is lying, ignorant of that which he is speaking of, or a shill for Assad. True, VX and Sarin or largely odorless... but many nerve, blister, and blood agents have odors ranging from bad (bleach, rotten eggs, etc) to pleasant (mowed hay/grass, almonds, vapor rub, etc). This is why WMD first responders are trained to ask victims if they smelled anything.

The smell is actually proof of a CW attack.

So yeah, I'm not convinced chemical weapons were involved.

Could be either an accident or use of a Toxic Industrial Chemical (TIC) misappropriated for military/ terrorist purposes.

At 3/17/13 09:23 PM, Breathe-0ut wrote: ...is 'totally' racist.

Also like some Family Guy episodes and a two part South Park episode, I have a good feeling it's going to start something.

Nah...not racist at all.

According to Webster's:
1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2: racial prejudice or discrimination

====

I just got done watching the episode. He makes fun of Muslims, but he is not saying that they are inferior, nor is he necessarily advocating for prejudice/discrimination against Muslims. In fact, he ends the episode by poking fun at anti-Muslim hysteria post-9/11.

Furthermore, he has made fun of all races, religions, sexual preferences, and genders. Same with South Park.

I think there is a difference between things that should honestly be offensive and things that are based in humor and even people just trying to communicate.

At 3/18/13 08:19 AM, Korriken wrote: Mark Kelly, Gabrielle Giffords' husband, buys an AT-15...

Wait...he bought a Russian anti-tank missile?

Cool.

How much? And where can I get one?

I've heard a lot of speculation (here and in the news) that Kim may only be a puppet for the military. This is a very possible situation. However, just because Kim Jong Un is 27, 28, or 29...does not mean that he does not have a firm grip on power.

To begin with, in order to under the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), one must first realize we're dealing with a government that looks towards feudal times for inspiration. In fact, Juche (the form of Communism practiced in the DPRK) has been described as 'Feudal Communism'. So the military may look at Jong Un as a legitimate leader. Kim Jong Il was able to consolidate power and began to set-up Kim as successor. Afterall, it is believed that Jong Un attended Kim Il Sung Military Academy...their version of West Point.

Then there is the purge of senior Korean People's Army (KPA) officers and officials (most prominent Kim Chol, Dep Defense Minister) by execution by Mortar fire or staged traffic accidents.

The scary thing is Jong Un may firmly be in power.

At 3/9/13 10:41 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Frankly, I think Manhattanization and infilling is the best method, but far too many (damn Whole Foods hippies and Redneck Yokels team up on this one) people are too attached to their current lifestyle.

Perhaps I'm missing something...but as a Redneck Yokel...I don't see where either of those would be something I'd be against. It would provide incentive for City Slickers to stay in their Urban Steel Towers. I don't mind if some looks down on me from up high and think they are better than me...just do it from a distance! :)

At 3/9/13 06:32 PM, Elfer wrote:

At 3/5/13 12:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Not good.

200,000,000 United States Allied citizens live within easy striking distance of NK. Would I love to see NK shut up and shut down? Absolutely. Am I willing to risk Japan, South Korea, and a ton of US soldiers to achieve that end? Absolutely not.

We're not really looking at a ground war situation. North Korea has a pretty large army, and they have ballistic missile capabilities, but it's pretty unlikely that they have the ability to overcome US missile defense systems or resist a mostly-aerial campaign by the US.

Yes...yes we most certainly would be. You're overestimating the capabilities of air power. Yes it was spectacularly successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that was different terrain. Here's a few examples of how air power would be blunted in a war with the DPRK:

* The DPRK has a history of building infiltration tunnels under the DMZ that are capable of funneling about 2,000 infantrymen into the South per hour. The wooded terrain as well as the fact that that in some of them we've found living quarters...we most likely would not be able to observe them entering the tunnel to know where to strike.

* Missile and rocket launches towards Seoul would not be our only concern. There are about 1,500 artillery pieces that can be aimed directly at Seoul. Some of these are most likely armed with some sort of binary chemical agent warhead. Along with incendiary and high explosive warheads...an undeterminate number of people will die in a rather short time (also, we have two major bases around Seoul). Our missile defense system cannot defend against incoming artillery, especially at that volume of fire.

* There is a concern that the DPRK has already infiltrated the South with special forces, some of which are trained in the use of chemical and maybe biological warfare agents. I'd even heard reports of mock-ups of American bases in the North where these forces practice infiltrating and attacking them.

Now...there are some issues that the North has to overcome, the main one is getting their tanks, armor, and other motorized units through the DMZ. But to think that it would be easy and as effective an air campaign as we've seen over Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan would be foolsih.

At 3/7/13 10:12 PM, Ravariel wrote: Like you said, an American proxy/colony on its border would make a lot of people nervous, so China has a vested interest in keeping N Korea out of trouble. If push comes to shove, I wonder if China won't just take the country over by proxy and put up a puppet government it can control more easily. I wonder tangentially if the people of N. Korea would even notice, aside from the "loss" of Dear Leader (or whatever Kim's nom de schmooze is).

I think setting-up a proxy/puppet government would be the way out for China. I'd be shocked if they did not have this already.

... I think their support of the latest round of UN sanctions is their (not-so-) tacit acknowledgement of this, and their first real attempt to mollify the west, while chastising the NK government.

I think China may be seeing the connection between international relations and domestic stability.

Granted, that provoked the Nuke comments, but I think NK isn't quite sure how to deal with Daddy putting his foot down and is having a bit of a temper tantrum. I forsee a smack to the bottom and getting sent to their room by China within the next few weeks.

My concern is that Pyongyang is failing and it is difficult for Jong-Un to hold-on to power. Kim may throw a tantrum by unleashing hell.

At 3/7/13 10:50 PM, HollowedPumkinz wrote: Is war likely? It's doubtful, China is their biggest supporter and I think in the event of NK doing something that would ultimately result in warfare, that they would come in and replace their regime with a Chinese puppet government that would be far more preferable to the NK'ers than a US puppet Gov.

I think this is a definite possibility. However, I think China would try to do this before the regime fell.

This would be, of course, after a few weeks of desperate fighting from a starved, under-equipped and untrained military. Whose real forces would be wiped out by the end of the month forcing millions of brainwashed supporters to fight guerrilla Vietcong style for years in the jungle, of course, after years of experience of fighting insurgents and climbing through desert caves and villages, our Army is much better prepared for fighting this kind of peasant army fighting than we were back in the 60's where we blindly allowed soldiers to walk into traps and go through dense jungle searching for phantoms.

You grossly underestimate the KPA...while overestimating our own military's capability.
*Afghanistan we faced an enemy that USAF, USMC, and USN air forces were able to pound into submission. In the very beginning the Taliban actually rode out to meet US forces in the open. The KPA will not do this. Instead they will use the cover dense woods and mountainous terrain...things which blunt the effectiveness of our airpower. Without airpower...the Marines and Army would have an exponentially more difficult time slogging it out on someone else's home turf.

* The DPRK is perhaps the most militarized country on Earth. They are conscription based starting at 17 (most likely 16 according to Western standards...the whole Korean thing about being aged 1 at birth). Therefore, the 8 million reservists have probably between 6-8 years of regular military experience...at the minimum. So we're not talking about a rabble here.

* In the DPRK, the only portion of the population that is actually well-fed would be the KPA...so we're not going to be fighting a peasantry that would be as band as you're assuming.

* Our ground forces, as well as our public, are weary of slogging it through these types of wars. It will be on new terrain fighting and enemy that is far more brainwashed and fanatical than the Taliban.

Assuming the US takes over the massive recovery plan after a presumed war erupts, those who hadn't stayed to fight would have fled to China by the hundreds of thousands, finding it easier there than to have their way of life torn asunder by strange white westerners.

China does not give fuck one about the plight of people fleeing from the DPRK. If there is a war and an influx of refugees into China...they will either go into internment camps if not mowed down at the border.

...Although I think what many of you might have not taken into account is that we have a sizable close ally country right beneath the recovering war torn country to help with reconstruction and reunification. Which is a hell of a lot more than what we had in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be much of a relief to have a country that has so readily embraced western lifestyle and capitalism just a few hundred miles down south.

This is very, very naive. If there is a war...S. Korea will not be in that great of a position to help with reconstruction. Afterall, Seoul (with its metro population of 25 million) will be totally fucked. Furthermore, if some SCUDs make it through the missile defense of the S. Koreans and the US Army...there are good chances that they will miss military targets and hit civilian population centers as well. So it is very naive to think that S. Korea is going to be a boon to reconstruction efforts...if anything they'll be asking for aid too.

At 3/7/13 11:45 PM, Korriken wrote: assuming it works. I wonder what the odds of a NK missile, that hasn't been tested, would make it to the American mainland.

I think the main problem is with the Tae Po-Dong II missile. That's what they've had trouble getting to work.

This may be true. Still, it would depend on NK's first strike and how quickly American can get in the air, blow their shit to pieces, achieve air superiority and keep it. If they launched a barrage of rockets/missiles into a city, it would cause a lot of deaths. I doubt NK would be able to march through the DMZ without taking heavy casualties.

Their first strike would most likely NOT be an airstrike. Their first strike would likely be with artillery that is placed in very mountainous terrain covered by dense woods. Furthermore, the amount would be too much. Most likely their first strike would be artillery barrage that would be aimed at Seoul.

As for making it through the DMZ...

...part of the tour I got of the DMZ included a trip to DPRK invasion tunnel that was discovered when the South was blasting for new construction. It's pretty interesting going a mile underground. You can still see the black stains from where they smeared coal dust in a silly effort to claim it was a coal mine.

The point being: how many tunnels have we yet to find?

If NK launched its entire airforce, it would deal severe amounts of damage to SK in a short time. Thing is, how often do NK pilots get to practice flying? Given how secretive NK is, probably not much. The best they got are MIG-29s, which are fairly old technology, which, in the first Gulf War, Iraq's migs got their asses handed to them. Old jets and poor training will lead to a lot of dead MIG pilots. Also, I doubt NK has very many of them. I'd estimate they might have 40-50 at most.

It's not so much that their MiG-29s are old (they are as old as anything we have but the F-22)...but their pilots just don't get that much stick time. Furthermore, they don't have anything like an E-3 AWACS airborne RADAR/C&C platform.

Their navy is mostly coastal patrol boats, 3 frigates and a few probably old soviet or Chinese submarines.

Whether NK's air defense would be worth anything would depend on how good their radar systems are, which I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that they're using obsolete systems that wouldn't be able to track stealth aircraft very well, if at all.

Most of this is clustered around Pyongyang. Making it a very costly target.

NK's advantage is they have a lot of soldiers and a small amount of land to fight on in comparison. it would make for some rather brutal gunfights, but in the end American air superiority would win.

Yes...once we re-establish it. They take out the USAF bases there and we've got to launch from a lot further away and wait for a carrier battle group to get there.

Not that it even matters, I doubt NK would be fool enough to attack without China's blessing and backing.

Normally...no they would not. However, if the domestic situation got untenable they might try to take out others in a public suicide ritual.

Pyongyang is the national equivalent of a mass shooter.

====

Do not make MacArthur's mistakes. Chances are major combat will be over in less than a year...but the fighting will be nasty and brutish.

At 3/7/13 03:04 PM, Elitistinen wrote: I heard somewhere US soldiers made Iraqi kids vomited, then made them re-consumed their own vomits again. What do you call this, my patriotic friend: post trauma disorder?

This forum is full of internet tough dicks. But not long dicks. How do you consider if I "want to go there"?

Have you ever heard the phrase: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"? If you're wanting to make claims that amount to war crimes (and then paint every servicemember with that brush) at least give us a link to even an Alex Jones' conspiracy video.

At 3/7/13 10:54 AM, Korriken wrote: I'll put it like this, I doubt NK has the ability to put a nuclear warhead on a rocket and actually get it to where they want it to go. They'd have to load it on a bomber and drop it. As I seriously doubt NK has much in the way of stealth technology, and no aircraft carrier to get a bomber within range of hitting DC, I'd say they're full of shit.

The problem is the DPRK is very good at working in secret. Much of their military production has gone underground post-Korean War. (Probably has to do with MacArthur wanting to turn it into a radioactive, glass parking lot.) We quite simply do not know what their capabilities are. Furthermore, they do not test military equipment like we do (ie: spend years on computer simulation, then tests in laboratories, then test flights, then operational use). A mushroom cloud over the West or Midwest may be first strike and test all in one of a completed system.

If they tried to fly a bomber over SK, It'd get blown out of the sky, given they still rely on old chinese and soviet aircraft, which can't even hope to compete with the US's airforce.

No...no they cannot. You are right about that.

I'm not a fan of war, but that fight wouldn't last long before Fat Bastard begs for forgiveness, in which I would hope Obama has the balls to say, "Oh hell no, you're going down, Fat Bastard!" I'm sure China would be pissy about NK being taken over by SK, but in the end, the removal of the Kim dynasty would ultimately be a good thing for NK.

that would be one hell of an expensive cleanup though.

We could literally see millions of S. Korean civilian dead before the first week of fighting is over. In the first three days will we probably have more US military dead than the entire 12 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention the thousands of American civilians over there.

The cost of blood will be far more than the cost of treasure.

At 3/7/13 03:13 PM, tyler2513 wrote: Yes, but since the Government is quite tight over in North Korea I doubt the public could ever get their hands on any weapons or organize any sort of system like the Syrian Freedom Fighters have done. Massive riots is about the best they could do, and I bet once they saw the opportunity of actually BEING FED they'd give in.

Your first assumption is totally wrong. The Korean People's Army (KPA) is the world's fourth largest army in terms of it's active component. However, it's reserve (ie: peasants who'll be given a rifle in the event of war) is the world's LARGEST reserve force with about 8.2-8.4 million 'soldiers'. Furthermore, their tactics are based upon lessons learned from anti-Colonial fighting against the Japanese (1920s to 1945), the first Korean War (1950-53), The Second Korean War (1966-69ish...also called the Korean DMZ conflict), as well as lessons observed in Vietnam, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the Global War on Terrorism.

A major part of their military doctrine is partisan/guerilla warfare.

As for the second part: stop thinking like and American and/or Westerner. These people do not think or rationalize like we do. And no...this is not me being racist but rather recognizing cultural differences (afterall, I lived in Korea and am very well-read on this topic). The people are brainwashed against the US and S. Korea. This is one of the reason many defectors only plan on going to China...because they are afraid that things are worsein the South. Yes, it is easier to cross a river than a 2.5mile wide mine field along the most heavily patroled border on the planet...but most see their future in China...not in the US' colonial puppet state that is S. Korea.

What does this have to do with not accepting food hand-outs? Chances are they will be told that the food is poisoned or some other lie to make people not take it.

* China does not want the US or a US ally on their border. So post-war they may loathe to accept a reunified Korea...the status quo suits them.

As much as China will despise this there facing such pressure from the international community there almost certain to give in. They've already severely weakened ties with DPRK and from all the previous sanctions being placed on them, as well as the new round being put on them currently they will no longer be any use to China as they will have not much to offer trading wise.

Again, stop thinking about what we in the US & the West think of as 'rational'. For Beijing the number one priority is keeping people happy on the domestic front. Having the US on their border may make people nervous. Also, you've got to remember that right now the DPRK is China's version of Mexico: every year there is a flood of illegal immigrants. Many of the women are sold into sexual slavery (that Korean on the web cam may actually be a DPRK refugee sold into bondage). This takes jobs and government resources from the people.

They'll only bend or go with international pressure/flow/etc so long as it suits them. Beyond that...they just don't give a fuck.

* There would be a refugee crisis unlike anything people living today have ever experienced.

I guess I never thought to much about refugees in this sense. This could be a reason Russia would severely oppose an intervention as they do share a small border.

More than the boarder...you've got history. The USSR was responsible (just as the US is/was) for the split after WWII and Japanese rule. They will face international pressure to help the refugees.

* You have a population far more brainwashed than the East Germans who will likely resist change.

I agree, but once again I think once the idea of actually having food on their plates becomes a possibility I think they will give in.

It will take a lot. Did you read the Wiki article on the Allegory of the Cave? It is going to take a lot to deprogram some of these people.

* Other Asian countries will put the onus on the US, S. Korea and Japan. So yes...we will be expected to re-build the DPRK even if it reunites with S. Korea.

We will definitely have to do our share, but with all the help from the Asian countries it shouldn't be nearly as costly as the recent military interventions the States has been involved in.

It is going to be alot more costly. In Iraq we took care to minimize collateral damage, so we did not start with nothing when it came time to rebuild. In Afghanistan we started with nothing...but with very little incentive to really build it up...plus we had a broad coalition interested in helping us. In the DPRK, we'll be starting with nothing. Factory managers along the Yalu river have been selling off equipment and even metal buildings to Chinese scrappers. Add to that manufacturing and civil infrastructure that was Soviet in origin and ancient when Germany reunified in the early 1990s...it is going to be a mess.

In the case of rebuilding the DPRK, the cost is mainly going to fall to: US, Russia, China, Japan, and S. Korea. As the world's largest economy...much of the burden is going to fall to us. Afterall, we are partly responsible for breaking it so now we own it. For example, we still catch flak for the bombing of the Sui-Ho dam along the Yalu. Many will be trying to get reparations out of us.

Third thing going against us: the cost of rebuilding in Iraq and Afghanistan and our treasury has felt the burden. So we're starting out weaker going into a situation far more expensive with less.

At 3/6/13 03:28 PM, tyler2513 wrote: I'm honestly quite eager to see North Korea get their ass handed to them. Many people say the two main problems with a war would be a) after removing all these dictators from power and crushing their peasant military the United States as usual would be obliged to help NK rebuild democracy and b) people think that just like in the Iraq War, once we remove the dictators an uprising among citizens and suicide bombers would emerge.

I don't think either of these will be a problem. After kicking their sorry asses many of the Asian countries would pitch in a lot more than they did for Afghanistan or Iraq, and China would especially help to establish good relations with the succeeding leaders of the nation. Also these people are hungry and starved, I doubt their in any serious condition to start an uprising after the current leaders are taken down, besides I don't think anyone loves fatass Jong-Un there anyway. It's time to free SK of being in constant fear of there Northern neighbour.

The DPRK is Plato's Allegory of the Cave come to life. The people there (with the possible exception of those in the North along the Yalu River that can see the lights of China) are cut-off from the outside world. They are told that the DPRK is the best, richest, most advanced country on the planet. They are raised to revere the Kim family and despise Americans. Every facet of life in the country is controlled by the government.

Yes they are starved, but this also means that dying is a relief. They will have the will to fight, and their military is capable of operating on far less food than ours.

As for US involvement post-war...

A more apt event to study would be the reunification of West and East Germany. That was bad enough meshing low-tech industry, sub-par schools, and a Soviet system with a democratic/capitalistic system. In the case of reunifying the Koreas you have several other issues:

* China does not want the US or a US ally on their border. So post-war they may loathe to accept a reunified Korea...the status quo suits them.
* There would be a refugee crisis unlike anything people living today have ever experienced.
* You have a population far more brainwashed than the East Germans who will likely resist change.
* Other Asian countries will put the onus on the US, S. Korea and Japan. So yes...we will be expected to re-build the DPRK even if it reunites with S. Korea.

@ Feoric
In many ways I totally agree with you. After the fall of the USSR and as China has grown closer to the US; the financial support that the regime in Pyongyang relies upon to survive has largely started to dry up. So since the 1990s the Kim dynasty has learned that ratteling the saber is a good way to get powers like the US, ROK, and Japan to give them money and/or food aid.

It is almost a yearly occurrence when they get all pissy about joint US/ROK military exercises. So this is more of the same.

However, taking a long view of history on the penninsula you can see in the 1960s the DPRK actually fighting a low-level war along the DMZ. Also, there is much that is unknown about Jong-Un (despite 'Worm Diplomacy' by Dennis Rodman). Also, this is not trying to get food aid. This could be an attempt to foil attempts at sanctioning the regime in light of recent nuclear testing.

It is a thing of concern and should not be dismissed out of hand. On the other hand...we need to avoid running around like Chicken Little.

At 3/5/13 12:29 PM, Korriken wrote: perhaps, but I think the war would end within a month. NK would struggle to defend its own borders, let alone find time to strike other countries, which would pull them into the war as well. NK would probably try to strike at US bases in some sort of surprise attack.

Yeah...in 1950 MacArthur thought we would be home by Christmas. But a war in Korea would make Iraq and Afghanistan look easy. Here's how it would probably start:

* DPRK special forces already in the ROK would target American and ROK military targets with biological weapons. Once people get sick...they know it's time to strike.
* Seoul and the surrounding metropolis (up to 25 million souls) would be shelled by DPRK artillery.
* SCUD (possibly WMD tipped) attacks on military bases in ROK. Probable strikes on US territory such Hawaii and possibly even as far East as the Mississippi.

difference between WW2 and today is we have better monitoring equipment. the Japanese caught us by surprise in Pearl Harbor. If the NK air force were to mobilize, we would know about it and be able to get our superior airforce in the air to counter it.

Yes, we would be able to easily obtain air superiority. However, the main attack would be Theater Ballistic Missiles with some primative ICBMs.

And even with our superior monitoring equipment...we've been surprised by them numerous times before.

The only think NK could possibly do is launch long range missiles at our bases in hopes that it actually lands somewhere in the base. Of course, the response would be the end of NK's government.

I think Trey Parker and Matt Stone got it right in Team America. If the regime were to be truly threatened, or about to collapse, they would try to take out as many people as possible.

I don't think China would enter the war if NK started it. If they did they would lose their biggest trading partners and end up devolving back into a 3rd world nation.

While not as much of a mystery as the DPRK, China still thinks differently than we do. Recently they've been fomenting anti-Japanese sentiment and doing their own saber rattling. For a good insight into the Chinese way of thought read China: Fragile Superpower by Susan Shirk.

Basically, Beijing will act irrationally to preserve power if domestic threats to the regime exist.

At 3/5/13 04:12 AM, Thecrazyman wrote: It should actually become "In the Hearts & Wills of the American People We Trust" when it comes to the US Currency, why is this? Because "In God We Trust" written in our nation's currency violates the Wall of Separation between State and Religion to begin with.

Not really. Let's begin with the text itself:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

There are two clauses that the courts look at to determine whether or not something violates this amendment:
1) ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: Is the law establishing a state/government religion (or position on religion).
2) PROHIBITION CLAUSE: Is the law prohibiting the free exercise of religious practices that would otherwise be lawfull. For example, the government may prohibit people from practicing parts of Shar'ia Law such as honor killings because murder is an unlawfull activity.

Now this is a case that would fall under an Establishment Clause controversy. There have been several challenges to our nation's official motto (In God We Trust became the official motto in the '50s). But each time the courts have held it to be Constitutional because it is not establishing a religion since it has no coercive power. (ie: The law establishing the motto cannot force you to do anything.)

Further more instead of "So help me God" when swearing upon the Presidential Oath, that should be abolished & replaced with none other but "So help me my Fellow Americans". Why "So help me my Fellow Americans" for the Oath of office of the President of the United States? Because the President is supposed to work for the American people by the needs for the American people.

Nothing to get really up in arms about. By law only the following is necessary:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

"So help me God" is an addition and tradition and carries no legal weight. And not all presidents have said it. Herbert Hoover only said "I do" when asked if he solmenly swore...

So again...much ado about nothing.

General of the Armies George Washington made one bad mishaps when he included "So help me God" within the Oath of office of the President of the United States, at least for what they say, but I think the biggest mishaps of them all is a number of past Presidents using Bibles when swearing that oath, this will change to the point where no future President-elect will ever be allowed to use holy books (even unholy books) when being sworn into office.

First of all, 'mishap' is an accident or bad luck. George Washington adding a phrase is purposeful...ergo not a mishap. The word you should've used would be 'mistake'.

Wow...fascist much? I get the point about 'In God We Trust' being a violation of church and state, that makes sense. But why do you want to take away our president's freedom in swearing in on whatever he or she chooses? Not all presidents have sworn in on the Bible or other holy books. Some have sworn in on books of law as a proxy for the Constitution.

So it is their choice...not a coercion. So you are wanting to infringe on their freedom when there is only a perceived (ie: imaginary) infringement on yours'.

This is without a doubt a change that will one day take place, a change that will come to pass once the moment is due.

Maybe. But should some of it?

With 'In God We Trust', it represents some historical truths. First of all, our founding principles are (in part) based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. Secondly, it was an attempt in the mid-1800s to unify the country as it was being torn apart leading up to the Civil War. Finally, it was made official in the '50s as part of the Cold War. So in a future where atheists outnumber the religious...I see it as having historic value.

As for what the president says when he's sworn in...that's infringing on his freedom just because someone feels something. And that's tyranny.

At 3/4/13 06:43 PM, Ceratisa wrote: Eh I think Mason slayed this one..

I think I may take a little break from this debate. You guys have things under control.

But be ready, I don't share other's surity that the AWB is DOA. Too much money, the right moment, and emboldened gun control sponsors.

At 3/4/13 04:05 PM, TheKlown wrote: http://abcnews.go.com/US/bailey-oneill-12-dead-weeks-school-
bullying/story?id=18649201

The Murderers will probably only get 1 or 2 years of Community of Service because that is how Pathetic the Laws are in USA. Before someone tells me to move, feel free to pay for my expenses.

I don't think they will get off that cheaply. But there are many factors to consider:
* Their age.
* Was their intent to actually murder?
* This could be manslaughter.

However, I do think they need to have consequences that are swift and severe.

Post here. We already have numerous topics on this subject. This is kindof the main one right now and still on the first page.

At 3/4/13 11:13 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/4/13 02:54 AM, Memorize wrote: How's that Dodd-Frank regulatory bill doing?

You don't even know what's in Dodd Frank.

It's passed now...so we can read it and know what's in it...right? ;)

At 3/2/13 12:37 PM, Camarohusky wrote: So long as those watching don't overstep their respective bounds for the type of institution, I don't mind an overwatch. That is a big level of trust, so it is quite understandable why some would be uncomfortable with it. I, personally, just don't believe that mere sight, which most of these places already have pretty darn good coverage even without a Panopticon layout, or the modern panopticon (CCTV). I see very little extra that could be done harmful by adding just a little bit extra sight to the formerly dark corners of these places.

Look at recent history: Stanford Prison Experiment, the watchers overstepped their bounds...and the watched went along with it.

As for education...I know many educators who do not want their classes being recorded (audio or video). It is their experience that it shuts students up. They are even less inclined to participate when they are being recorded. I think in schools it would be a huge mistake. Also, I think the teacher needs to be able to relax in order to best deliver instruction...knowing that at anytime an administrator could be looking at you would just make anxiety worse.

Also, why do we need this? Why tempt further violation of civil rights?

At 3/2/13 01:25 PM, Warforger wrote:

At 3/2/13 01:31 AM, TheMason wrote: This could suppress the Einsteins and Renaissance Men & Woman who move society and humanity forward, as well as trampling individual freedom.

Einstein actually grew up in a very militarized and authoritative school system which he hated and dropped out of. This would've probably done little but further fuel his hatred for authority (although he was a Socialist and was pretty supportive of the USSR).

And that is evidence of what I'm saying. Back then Einstein had the ability to sit for exams for university. Nowadays that is rare, although thankfully becoming more common.

As for the Renaissance, although better yet the people who did what the Renaissance took credit for the Scholastics and their like were part of the authority and revived ancient philosophy to justify it.

I was not speaking of them, but rather Polymaths. Secondly, revise history much? These people, while yes part of the upper and ruling classes, did revive ancient philosophy. But in what universe is restoring lost knowledge a bad thing? They were attempting to reverse mistakes made by an overzealous Church destroying non-Christian Western Thought. They opened up learning to a broader base which allowed for more people to get educated.

Besides there were plenty of authoritative philosophers, like say Plato who condemned Democracy and called for essentially a Theological Fascist Dictatorship.

I think we should be teaching our children that Democracy is a utopian ideal: good on paper but horrible in practice (much like Communism/Socialism). What Plato was observing was that Democracy is a degenerative form of government which leads to all sorts of anarchy (moral, social, political, economic, etc) which will give way to tyranny.

What he was really advocating for were rulers who sought wisdom and knowledge. Lovers of truth, who would actually be guardians of freedom. All while recognizing that there must be a balance between freedom and authority. Hence the title: The Republic. We kind of had that at our founding. The Founding Fathers were not perfect, they were human after all, but they were wise learned men. Today, the idea of a Polymath is anethma to how we want to raise our kids. We want them studying the one or two things that will get them good, well-paying jobs. We don't care whether or not they are good citizens...but what their earnings potential will be.

Also nowadays we have idiots in our political class who are worth nothing outside of politics. You had Clinton who went straight into politics (with a brief stop as a law prof) after graduating Law school. Then you Bush the Younger who couldn't do anything in the civilian sector...pretty much failed at everything. And now you've got Obama whose career path followed Clinton's only he came into office lacking Clinton's governing skills.

So I don't think Plato is excessively authoritarian...although as Stalin and numerous other dictators have shone...it is possible to pervert him thusly.