5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
@ Saen
I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of all legal, ethical hunters. I have no love or respect for poachers. Here in Mo, if you are poaching or road hunting and get caught you are arrested and your truck, everything in your truck, and your rifle are all seized.
But I did some digging on Fl game laws. Road hunting is a prohibited method for taking game. As for the use of dogs in hunting, this is actually a traditional method for hunting going back through colonial times, the middle ages, and to the first dogs prehistoric humans domesticated. In modern times though, many states such as Missouri prohibit the use of dogs in taking game such as deer but allow them for hunting small game such as raccoons.
You are correct to be upset over poachers and road killers. This is not hunting, legal, or ethical. It also gives hunters a bad name. However, it has been my experience that legal & ethical hunters far outnumber the those who are criminals.
But at the same time, I would like you to recognize that you err in painting legitimate hunters with too broad of a brush. Furthermore, there are many reasons people hunt. Some for sport, others for meat, and yet others for wildlife management. Me I'm the latter two. I'm not in it for the sport. My reasons are twofold:
1) I am a landowner, I own and live on 52 acres in the middle of the country. One of the issues we have in Missouri is the health of our deer population. As the human population has expanded, the deer's natural predators have shrunk in population whereas people feeding deer because they are cute and cool to have around causes them to overpopulate and succumb to diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) and starvation during droughts and harsh winters. As a landowner I have a responsibility to monitor the wildlife on my land. I can take up to two deer for free a year as well as an additional two for $15. I can also allow other hunters on my land. How many I take per year is dependant upon the size of the herd and their health which I monitor with trail cams.
2) I also hunt because it IS a source of cheap meat. Of the deer around here will yield 70-80lbs of meat. The cost to process it is about $70-80. So I get steak and deer burger for about $1/lb. I cannot get meat at the store for cheaper.
As for hunting methods:
These too change with the hunter. Some hunters prefer more traditional means of hunting such as black powder, bow, and even an atlatl. However there are some ethical issues with these methods that cause hunters like me (who are not in it for the sport) to prefer modern firearms:
1) You point to hollowpoints as something that takes away from hunting. But here's what it adds: humanity. These rounds are quicker to kill which means that the animal suffers less. It also means that wounded animals are easier to track and do not run as far, therefore the hunter can use a pistol to put it out of its misery instead of not being able to find it and so it dies slowly, painfully. So I think using ballistic type ammo is by far more ethical and human than traditional hunting methods.
2) You brought up accuracy. In the days of the Revolution the military had smoothbore muskets. These things were very inaccurate. But when you had lines of soldiers marching towards each other you did not have to hit the guy you were aiming at. It was just as well to hit one of the two guys on his left or the two guys on his right. By the civil war our guns had something called rifling (hence the term rifling) which made their shots much more accurate. However, these guns required that each shot's powder and ball be loaded by hand which meant that (even though powder charges were pre-made) there was some variation between loads...which effected accuracy. This lead to the invention of the cartridge which reduced this variation.
The accuracy of the military rifle probably reached its zenith between the 1870s and World War II when most armies used bolt action rifles. These remain the most accurate rifles out there because they are most efficient in terms of energy as well as stable. Automatic firearms provide the shooter with other advantages bolt action rifles do not have...but at the cost of accuracy.
3) Re-read my post. I was not saying anything about bladed weapons being used for hunting. Instead, you made a comment about 'risk' being part of hunting. I was merely pointing out that this is an absurb argument, and only makes you sound like you do not know anything about hunting. I was making my point by comparing your argument to those guys who come in here and say you do not any type of gun for home/self-defense. Your re-buttal does nothing to help your case...it is if anything a weak attempt at manipulating what I was saying into another line of argument. One that fails utterly.
At 2/22/13 01:16 PM, Saen wrote: It is certainly not a dead issue in Connecticut and many other states, but I am absolutely disgusted and through talking about it any further with you guys.
But on the federal issue, it is probably not going to go anywhere. Furthermore, why are you absolutely disgusted? At this point I have provided you with links that show you that LCMs are not causing the type of carnage that you think they are.
Also, I share the same goal as you: preventing needless deaths due to gun violence. The only difference is I'm looking at this from the perspective of what options are:
A) What options are realistic?
B) What options are effective.
At this point all the science points to is dealing with the magazine issue will not solve any problems and what effect it would have would be trivial compared to the effects of mobilizing the same money and manpower in other directions.
... The point of a gun control debate is to reduce violence and killings, the vast majority of which are caused by guns.
Yes it is. But here's the thing, I've shown repeatedly that your solutions to gun violence are based upon erroneous assumptions. Therefore, while guns are used in those killings...they are not the root cause of those killings. I have shown you multiple reasons why further gun control would be counter-productive and largely ineffective.
I have also shown you policy suggestions that would have a far greater impact on reducing gun violence...but would suffer from further gun control policies that would divert money, resources, and manpower into other agencies (predominately law enforcement). And yet all you retort with is retrenchment in your false assumptions.
Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.
We have already tried these things and there is some evidence of their effectiveness. But, these are limited. For example, in the case of gang shootings (which are a HUGE portion of killings) there is a culture of non-cooperation with police which reduces the effectiveness of the police to solve the murders.
Instead of spending the money on punitive measures hoping they will be a deterent...why not spend money on programs that will actually tackle the causes of gun violence...instead of symptomatic media sensationalism?
At 2/22/13 09:49 AM, Saen wrote: Not focusing on a beach setting, any public setting where dressing skimpily is common. That's why I gave the nightclub, bar, concert, house party examples.
Saen...it would have been far better to have just not responded. That is the best way to concede a point on a BBS discussion like this. Better yet is to acknowledge that you have nothing to come back with.
But...to try and weasel out of being pinned down is just bad form. You are the one who brought up the beach setting. You have also brought up public settings in a general sense, and naked/foam parties in the specific sense.
I'm the one who gave the nightclub and bar examples.
So yeah...you HAVE focused on public settings where skimpy dress is common...as well as nudity and I have addressed those arguments. You on the other hand have not addressed my points on this.
And now you try to squirm away from your point? Very bad rhetorical form.
Yes I have been trying to tackle and focus on this the whole time! It's difficult when there haven't been any case studies or incident reports on this!
A few things:
* You do not address the core of my point that women often wear clothing that makes rape easier while frequenting areas and activities that could help facilitate rape.
Academic/scientific sources are always the best to use. I totally agree with you and share this feeling. However, there are other sources of information that are not as good but still authoritative and valid. These would be things like law enforcement professionals and training on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response...something every military member goes through on an annual basis.
Now when many of them are talking about dress...I'd tend to error with them on the side of caution.
A good hypothetical experiment ...
You do good recognizing that this would never happen. Such an experiment would be highly unethical and no one would allow it.
Obviously this experiment is nearly impossible to preform. A more realistic experiment would be measuring the "attention factor" each outfit has for a group of similar looking women. So instead of measuring rape incidences, you would record the number of times each clothing class gets approached and hit on by a guy.
Let me say...I'm glad you're thinking about this scientifically. However, the main problem is you suffer from a fatal methodological error: you're not measuring rape incidences. You're measuring something else and including, as a vast majority of your data points, the interest of non-rapists. So this study would provide no useful responses.
Now what could be studied:
* prison interviews with convicted rapists
* interviews with persons who have served their time for rape/SA
* interviews with victims on their rape (suffers from ethical and methodological dilemnas thought)
* have law enforcement record type of clothing (also suffers from some ethical dilemnas)
lol I hope you meant spandex, because latex is rather easy to rip.
-- The attractiveness/sluttiness of the clothing is a seperate issue. June Cleaver in her conservative, Stepford Wives sundress would be easier to rape than a submissive wearing a latex body suit (as long as their is no zipper in the crotch).
True...but you've got to cut/pierce it first. The point I was trying to make though, is taking it off can be very difficult...and may provide a disincentive despite being very overtly sexual in nature.
But you are correct that it could become easily cut in a struggle and then be easily torn off.
And the price to be paid? Put yourself in a woman's shoes, your mission of the night is to grab the attention and hook up with a specific cute guy you had in mind. You go to a frat party (where is it customary for Sorority members to dress high class, so every girl is in a dress) and you show up in jeans. Not only will you blown off by the one guy you were aiming for, but ridiculed and kicked out from the party.
Okay...so?
Hate to break it to you...but I'd still encourage my daughter (who will be going to college in four years) not to dress in a way that makes her vulnerable. Furthermore, I'm going to talk with her about joining a sorority and try and disuade her from it. Because if she has to dress a certain way to get that cute guy...then he's not good enough for her.
I want my daughter to have the self-esteem that means that her self-worth is not a component of what she wears but who she is. I'm pretty sure that you can tell by now that I am college educated. So I've very well versed in multiple aspects of the college social scene. There are alternatives to sororities and frat parties where she can find the same level of social gratification as frats and sororities.
Furthermore, I have been to frat parties. And guess what? Outside of formals...I've seen girls in jeans. Designer, high-class, tight-fitting jeans. And guess what else? They were getting hit on just like the girls dressed in mini-skirts or dresses.
So this point fails.
As for the bar scene the same idea applies. A girl dressed in jeans will be outcompeted by a girl dressed classy or stunning on a night out.
Again...maybe FSU is different from St. Louis U, U of S. Carolina, U of Mo, or some of the other college nightlife scenes I've been around between 1993-2008. But the type of clothing does not matter...how she pulls it off does. If you're an attractive girl, you're going to get attention. Regardless of what you're wearing.
Regardless, a predator will choose a victim who appears the most VULNERABLE.
And clothing helps make you vulnerable if it facilitates the rape. You have not addressed this point but danced around it.
I haven't accused you of blaming women for being raped or anything along those lines. The idea that the mechanics of women's clothing is a deciding factor in a predator's stalking process is just not true.
Umm...its truthfulness has not been confirmed academically or scientifically. So you are technically correct. On the other hand...you have the professional opinion of people who deal with rape as part of their jobs saying it is a factor.
Secondly, it is not just about the predator's 'stalking process'. It is about how vulnerable the girl is in the situation. In the event of a rape attempt...will her clothing work for or against her.
Just saying something is not true does not make it not true. Nor does it address the point you are trying to counter.
If you wan't women to protect themselves from being raped, there are much more effective measures they can take rather than the clothing they wear. Not drinking too much or drinking anything that's not yours, don't isolate yourself, keep your phone with you, always go out and leave with your group of friends, make sure you're familiar with the place you're going to, learn how to defend yourself, etc.
Those are other measures, measures that I do advocate and support.
But simply stating them does not make them relevant to the discussion of the effectiveness of dressing defensively. So at this point my argument still stands.
At 2/21/13 08:16 PM, poxpower wrote:At 2/21/13 07:31 PM, TheMason wrote:Statistically speaking...the data just is not there.Well you'll find a lot of sociologists and women's rights advocates say that the data shows it doesn't matter.
But everyone knows those two fields of study / activism are bullshit, so take that for what it's worth :D
I actually give sociologists a lot of props and do not consider their line of study to be bullshit. However, with women's rights activists...we're talking about political activists not academics. If you read my posts on gun control and check out the links I source, very rarely will you find links to the NRA or GOA to support my claim. The reason is they are politically and emotionally charged and motivated and very often skewed in accordance with an agenda. Therefore, they often lack validity and are filled with methodological errors.
But in terms of the sociology of this subject...I do not think it is very well understood. Part of it is there are barriers I see to collecting data:
* unavailability from law enforcement sources
* ethical considerations in conducting interviews with rape victims (it is reasonable to assume that asking about the clothes a woman was wearing could induce feelings of blame that would be counter-productive to her healing)
* rape is perhaps the most underreported crime involving a victim out there. Therefore a majority of cases are not available to be sampled. This produces problems of sample error and reporting bias.
So I think sociologists speaking on this topic are speaking from a theoretical perspective rather than a firm data perspective.
At 2/21/13 10:39 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 2/21/13 07:31 PM, TheMason wrote: Um...the clothes a woman is wearing would be a situational factor.But it's not. No rapist is going to be triggered by the sexiness of a target. Certain rapists are triggered by a certain article of clothing, but there's nothing that indicates that that article of clothing will nessecarily be a sexy or skimpy one (e.g. a knit sweater could be the trigger, and those aren't revealing or sexy by any means.)
In other words, the amount of reveal the clothes have do no have that much of an effect, if any at all, on whether the wearer is likely to be raped or not.
But it is.
There are two sides to the argument about dress and rape:
1) That dressing in an overtly sexual way can make you a target for rape.
2) That the way you dress makes you either a 'hard' or 'soft' target for rape. A hard target would be clothing that would be difficult to get off making the rape more of a challenge. A soft target would be the girl in a micro-mini with a thong on.
Now...I don't think issue 1 has been studied all that in-depth partly because of the difficulty acquiring the data. And it is further complicated by the problems of under-reporting of rape and the willingness of victims to participate. Plus, rules against human subjects in research studies, including interviews, could prohibit the sort of interviews that could shed light on number 1 because of the psychological harm done to the victim since it could lead to her blaming herself.
As for point #2...which is the main thrust of my argument at this point...
You're not addressing. Whether or not the clothes worn are sexual in nature is irrelevent. You're still caught-up with addressing point 1 when I'm talking about point 2 so you fail to deconstruct my argument.
So...yes clothing remains a situational factor. How many rapists are going to look at two drunk girls with everything else being equal
Girl A: Wearing tight fitting jeans with a belt. Heels that are buckled or tied on. She looks very sexy and attractive...not a wall flower by any definition.
Girl B: Wearing a dress. It could be a rather plain sundress. She's wearing flats, hair in a pony tail.
Girl A is dressed sexually, but her clothing would be difficult to get off of her. Takes time. Also, you are focusing your strength on removing clothing...not subduing her. Not doing the act.
Girl B is dressed conservatively, not overtly sexual at all...but all you have to do is push up the skirt. It is quick and you don't have to do two things at once: take off her clothes while subduing her. She is the easier mark.
In the end, my point was that clothing is a situational factor in that it can make you easy to rape or hard to rape.
Sexiness of the clothing has nothing to do with, and is at this point irrelevent.
Nor has anyone shown where dressing defensively is a bad idea.
I'm coming at it from a "what makes a rapist rape" perspective, and the sexiness of the clothes just doesn't do it. It's more about vulnerability and weakness, and sexy clothes espouse, far more often than not, the opposite of weakness or vulnerability. A girl who dresses like a nerdy loner is a far easier, and thus far more appealing target, than one dressed like a slut.
Depends on the sexy clothes. If we're talking about a tailored powered suit with expensive heels...yes that's powerful. If we're talking about a woman wearing tight fitting jeans and a top that shows off her curves...yes that's confidence.
But if we're talking about a girl wearing clothes that are only a notch or two above a stripper's costume that is not strength, confidence, or invulnerability. In a culture where that kind of clothing is commonly portrayed as being worn by a woman with 'Daddy Issues' (see Barny in How I Met Your Mother or Charlie in Two and a Half Men) and low self-esteem.
And that's the thing, if a clothing ensemble is considered 'sexy' I agree we're probably talking about a woman who projects strength and confidence. But when the clothing is considered 'slutty'...she is projecting weakness and vulnerability.
====
Also, by focusing on point 1 (the sexual nature of clothing), you are overlooking point two about dressing defensively. Which as I point out below makes one less of a target because of the challenge their clothing presents.
Now, there are ways to dress weak, but that's never been the focus of the "don't dress that way" message. It's never been "dress like you're strong and can handle anything, thus deterring potential attackers who will think you can fight back." It's always been, "Dress for sex and you will get raped." There is NOTHING that indicates, even anecdotally, that rapists are out for the sexiest thing they can find.
I think if you re-read what I'm writing...you'll see that I'm making this point. Yes, I think that there could be a link between overtly sexual clothing and a very small increase in a woman's likelihood of being targeted. But as you point out...there is no data on it. But the data is rather silent either way, I've tried looking for studies on it and come up with inconclusive studies.
But my position is two-pronged. Dress defensively so that a potential rapist looks at you as strong and a challenge, not easy. Since rape is about power, then most rapists probably are not looking for a victim that would present the most challenge, but whose weakness would compliment their personal fable of strength. They may also be looking for a target that will be easy to subdue so that their risk of getting caught is reduced. Afterall, if you don't have to struggle with zippers and buttons and then pull tight fitting jeans off two kicking legs...you can instead focus on holding her down.
I'm not making the case that you are focusing on. Nor am I attempting to shift blame to the victim. At most all I'm saying is you have the responsibility to yourself to dress in a way that is safe for the situation you're putting yourself in. It is not the bouncing star from Super Marios Bros. that makes you invincible...but it will have some effect.
I'm not taking into account the long term watchers, stalker rapists, or accquantances, as the timeline for them is so long that they've picked out their target well before the time of the attack and in such case the clothes being worn are pretty much irrelevant.
Agreed.
At 2/21/13 06:32 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Rapes of all kinds has far more to do with situational factors than the clothes a woman is wearing.
Um...the clothes a woman is wearing would be a situational factor.
The time, place, size, aloneness, intoxication, and so on are the factors that exist in rapes. Put two girls with the same vulnerabilities in the same situation in differing clothes and their chances of being raped is the same.
Statistically speaking...the data just is not there. And that is the problem with this debate, it's not like gun control where there are firm and conclusive studies and stats. And so to make your conclusion...or mine...is a matter of opinion instead of firm, scientifically established facts.
Where I'm coming at this is from the numerous Sexual Assault Prevention & Response training through the military, as well as my several cop buddies. In the absence of academic/scientific data...go with the opinion of professionals.
At 2/21/13 04:08 PM, morefngdbs wrote: I'd like to point out there has been a huge increase in reported rapes in Eygpt as well as the ones lately in India.
Those women while not covered in burk's are covered head to toe, often with no more than the hands & face exposed & in the case of Eygpt not always the face is exposed !
Just wanted to point that out.
A few things:
* There are vast differences in cultural norms and mores regarding both sex and rape (as two seperate issues) between Egypt, India and the US. So any comparison (irregardless of the side the event supports) suffers from validity problems from the start.
* It is not only the 'slutty' factor of clothing or how much skin is exposed that is the issue. What is she wearing underneath the burkha (when I was in the desert you could see jeans peeking out of the bottom of their burkhas) or sari? Afterall, bondage outfits could make rape harder than a conservative housewife's dress.
At 2/21/13 11:32 AM, Saen wrote:At 2/12/13 12:31 PM, TheMason wrote:lol we were discussing a scenario just like this not too many posts ago, a scenario which you brought up and were defending avidly.
Sorry, but the bikini point falls on its face. You're talking about going to a public place in the middle of the day where there are tons of people...
Dude...you do realize that there is a difference between a beach setting where there are wide open spaces, daylight visibility, ope family-orientated businesses, etc...and something like bar hopping or a frat party where a predator could relatively easily incapacitate and isolate a woman from people who would come to her aid.
So no...we were NOT discussing a scenario just like this one.
Nightclubs don't have incentives to "protect" women from rape as they are not liable. Of course you don't walk to a nude party naked rofl, you strip at the party! I've made plenty of examples of were the clothing worn would made the mechanics of rape easier, which you have not addressed. Show that rape incidences are higher in any of these environments and I'll concede.
As for naked parties these are controversial social experiements. Therefore, the people throwing the party have incentives to keep them safe. Furthermore, you're not walking to the party naked and in college towns where there is a bar district, walking past isolated dark areas that facilitate rape.
A few things:
* You do not address the core of my point that women often wear clothing that makes rape easier while frequenting areas and activities that could help facilitate rape.
* Instead you parrot my point about not traveling to the naked party...naked. You obfuscate the issue and attempt to camoflauge your lack of response by a feable attempt at making what I said sound absurd instead of addressing the point.
* You're actually wrong about the nightclub's liability...especially if they are hosting something like a naked party or BDSM event which is sexually charged. If a rape happens at one of these events...the club owner could find themselves liable.
* I have addressed the issue of clothing that makes the mechanics of rape easier. Here's a reminder:
-- The attractiveness/sluttiness of the clothing is a seperate issue. June Cleaver in her conservative, Stepford Wives sundress would be easier to rape than a submissive wearing a latex body suit (as long as their is no zipper in the crotch).
-- My whole point centers around wearing something that provides easy access when engaging in activities that could facilitate a rape such as drinking or walking from club to club in a bar district.
--Wear a slinky dress to homecoming & dances, wear a bikini at the beach, or take it all off at a naked party. But if you're going to a frat party or bar hopping...you may want to wear jeans.
Finally:
While I do want to see a decrease in the incidence of rape...
When it comes to my wife, daughter and female airmen:
I
DO
NOT
GIVE
A
FUCK...
...if what I'm saying has an overall impact on the rate at which rape occurs.
All I care about:
* Is that it is someone else's daughter who gets raped over my daughter. (Hey...I know this makes me an asshole. But, when/if you ever have a daughter you will feel the same way.)
* Is that if my wife or airman is assaulted the clothes she's wearing buys her time to:
-- yell for help...and that help to arrive.
-- provide the time for opportunity to escape to present itself.
No one deserves to be raped. Nor should how they were dressed or activities they were engaged in (I know a girl who was into the BDSM scene who was doing a bondage event and was raped)...EVER be a defense for rape. Do not confuse what I'm saying as assigning blame OR providing a basis for a criminal defense of rape.
All I'm saying to the women in my life is: be responsible and PROACTIVE in preventing rape from happening to YOU! You do this by:
* Remaining vigilient in high risk areas such as bars and parties. If a cute guy you don't know offers to buy you a drink only accept it from a waitress or bartender...but is preferable to watch the drink be opened/poured.
* Dress appropriately for the situation with an eye towards risk. Dress attractively...but also defensively. Don't make a potential rapist think you'll be an easy mark. Make him work for it.
* Do not isolate yourself from the group...unless you are planning to have consensual sex.
* When first meeting a cute guy talk about your father, his gun collection, the 90 acres of isolated farmland he access to, and his two buddies who came back from Iraq not just quite right. ;)
Okay...to all my friends who think gun control is a good idea...do you really want this guy as your spokesperson? I mean...shit...I'm stuck with Wayne LaPierre who I think may be going senile...you were good in the 1990s and have fought the good fight. But now is the time to consider retiring from it and letting a new generation take over the standard.
But enough of that...onto Biden:
* First of all he shows a cavalier attitude towards the safety of both his wife and potential perpetrator. While I do not disagree with his choice of a shotgun for the majority of home defense scenarios...unless you are retriving your child/ren...you NEVER want to either confront the home intruder or expose yourself to him. By telling Jill to go out on the balcony...he's telling her to make herself a target. This is stupid advice...bordering on negligence. Furthermore, by trying to confront the criminal you increase the chance for bloodshed. You also equalize the odds that the person getting hurt is you.
* Secondly, two qucks blasts? WTF, Joe? You're talking about a double-barrel shotgun. You fire off two blasts just willy-nilly you do two things:
-- show that you lack the responsibility to safely own guns (no wonder he thinks no one else should either), by firing blindly you risk hitting an innocent by-stander.
--show your complete and utter ignorance of tactics. You fire off two blasts in a double-barrel shotgun...and you're out of ammo! What are you going to do if that does not deter the bad guy?
--when you fire...you reveal your position and while standing on the balcony re-loading your shotgun...a bad guy hiding in the shrubs can now take a shot at you.
* Harder to aim? Harder to shoot? Again Joe...WTF? Do you enjoy setting back your side by displaying just how stupid your opinion is? How much you don't know about guns?
--How is the AR-15 more difficult to aim? Of the intermediate-powered rifles...the AR-15 is the most accurate. Furthermore, it is designed so that you can train someone who has never fired a gun to become proficient with minimal training.
--The AR-15 fires a .223 round whereas the 12guage fires either one slug that is .69" in diameter or 9 balls that are .30" diameter. Furthermore, the AR-15 uses the recoil to operate the action...reducing the 'kick' making it easier to shoot.
* Finally Joe, there are some cases where civilians can use 30 rounds.
--Varmit control for farmers/ranchers where you don't need a high powered round...and in the case of pack animals you could use the extra-rounds.
--Older homes with heavy wooden doors. Proper home defense calls for barricading yourself in a safe room and if necessary firing through a door. Older homes have heavy wooden doors, especially oak, that are capable of stopping pistol and shotgun projectiles. An AR and AK have the penetrating capability to shoot through these doors. After shooting 7 rounds...having more as back-up is a good thing in case there is more than one perp.
--Temporary Feral Cities like New Orleans post-Katrina or LA during the Rodney King riots. In these cases, you would want suppressing fire since you could be defending your property against looters and rioters.
Sorry Joe...but you make zero points that actually supports your policy position. Just affirmation that you are not qualified to make decisions regarding what is or is not 'common sense', 'reasonable', or 'rational' gun control policy.
This comparative high rate of fire, fast reload rate, and large magazine capacity is an example of a deadly combination I'm talking about. Does it really need to be made more effective with magazines that can hold 20+ rounds of ammo?
Look...what you are saying is perfectly reasonable and logical. However, it is not observed as significant when you look at realworld data.
First of all...let's look at the feasibility of eliminating the supply of LCMs:
* There are millions of both guns and magazines in circulation. In order to make a ban on LCMs effective...you would have to make mandatory gun buy-backs.
* LCMs are not all that difficult to make, all you need is basic high school level metal shop skills. Even if you make guns that can only accept the 7-rd mags that are legal for sale...someone who wants a LCM for nefarious purposes will be able to easily make them.
* 20+ rd LCMs tend to be more for rifles...which are used in less than 0.1% of crime historically. Of the 7,500 guns seized by Chicago PD in 2012...only 300 (or 0.04%) were assault rifles. So you are focusing on something that, statistically speaking, will have ZERO impact.
But consider this hypothethical:
Let's assume that you can magically eliminate LCMs from the civilian and criminal gun supply.
* You are expending considerable public resources in attempting to address 2% of the criminal activity...and something that is more symptomatic rather than a causal factor.
* Since neither the LCM or the gun itself is the cause of the crime...will you stop the crime? According to the Penn State study I linked to in our last conversation on the last page of this topic, the incidence of 'assault pistols" decreased but this could not be linked to drops in crime since the crime rate was dropping in general. This suggests that the bad guys will just switch to other guns...which may actually be more powerfull (as revolvers tend to be in magnum caliburs) and result in more deaths (but to be fair...the 2% of times that a bad guy uses the LCM for its rate/volume of fire accounts for more people being wounded). In the case of mass killings, based upon what we've seen in places like Columbine and Aurora, the killers may move to explosives and even chemical weapons which in many cases can be cheaper and more accessible than guns.
In the end...you are not addressing a problem that exists in the realworld. Thus, if we dealt with your fear as a legitimate basis of public policy we will be shifting time, money, and resources from programs such as Tech Goes Home which will address both the economic and educational causes of crime.
Your focus on LCMs will not have any perceptible impact on crime. However, if we would spend the money and manpower we'd spend on trying to get rid of LCMs on something that will make a poor, underprivildeged child's home life and education better and result in him and his cohort at school choose college over gangs...now THAT would actually do something.
At 2/21/13 11:25 AM, Saen wrote: In my opinion, the sport of hunting involves a certain amount of risk, patience, precision, and tracking. When using an Ak-47 two of those skills are immediately thrown out, precision and risk. That is if you fire one shot with a semi auto and miss, you can just instantly fire again, allowing less time for your target to escape. As for risk, well any dangerous animal that gets close to you can be shot at over and over until it's dead.
Saen...in the past you have admitted that you are not much of a hunter. You have a low opinion of it, as well as demonstrated a degree of ignorance on the topic. Now, engaged in a conversation with a hunter...why do you think your opinion is all that relevant? Not trying to be rude...but if hunting is just a thought experiment to you...just how valid is it compared to an actual hunter? Afterall you reveal one erroneous foundation to your opinion as well as one that is just plain silly:
* The rate of fire between a semi-auto is not all that different from a lever action or pump. I shoot skeet with a pump and it is just fine for hitting two moving targets (double barrel even better). Lever action is about the same as a pump. Yes a semi-auto is faster...but the limiting factor on rate of aimed fire is reacquring your target...which is the same irregardless of action. And I can operate a pump/level in about the time it takes to reacquire the target. Bolt...not enough to really make it more sporting. Furthermore...as I point out the semi-auto is less accurate than bolt or lever actions requiring more marksmanship. :) But in the end...not as significant a difference as you think.
* Risk: Dude...this is just silly. It reminds me of those guys who come on here talking about using swords and martial arts instead of guns for self-defense.
So you the invention of semi automatic rifles required hunters and soldiers to be even more accurate with their shots? You've got it backwards dude.
Again...step back and analyze the situation. You're talking to a guy who is a hunter and has military training. Of the two of us...who would be the more likely to have it backwards?
* the military does not use spray and pray...waste of ammo and soldiers simply could not carry enough rounds to sustain a firefight on full-auto.
* regardless of action...you still have to hit your target. Bolt actions are more accurate than autos (semi, full, or selective) because:
- The actions on autos fit more loosely which siphons energy away from the bullet.
- The cycle of firing a bullet, especially in autos that operate on the blowback principle, siphons energy from the bullet.
-- less energy means a trajectory that is less flat which, by definition, means less accurate
- The movement of the action as it cycles reduces accuracy
So...sorry Saen...you are only revealing your lack of knowledge and authority to speak on this subject.
... Magazine size is my concern, but I'm pretty tiered of saying this over and over. So I'll just leave you with this thought.
Just because you say something over and over does not make it right. You have failed to back up your argument with supporting facts...just suppositions.
Do you research on shootings that were a result of a semi-auto pistol versus a revolver. Both are handguns and are easy to conceal, however a semi-auto pistol has a much higher rate of fire, faster reload rate, and magazine capacities over twice the amount of revolvers. It seems the decreased reliability of a magazine doesn't seem to deter the majority of criminals from making it their gun of choice.
I'm very well versed in the research. When you look at the factors involving why a criminal chooses the gun he chooses you see the following trends:
* Criminals go for cheap and available over functionality and design features such as LCM (lg cap mags), reload/fire rates, accuracy, etc.
* When criminals do choose a gun based upon its characteristics...they favor larger calibur hanguns. Larger calibur handguns tend to be revolvers.
* Since criminals go for cheap and available...this is a market ruled by supply not the demand of the customers. In this case, the supply of guns follow popular trends with legitimate shooters which is subject to change. Consider:
- 1970s-1990: .357 and .38 revolvers each accounted for more than double the 9mm pistols made for the civilian market.
- 1990s: The market changed and people started buying semi-auto handguns.
* Crimes in which the criminal fired more than 10 shots: 2%...accounting for 5% of gunshot wounded. These mostly invovled pistols since 'assault rifles' are very rarely used in crime. Also, despite the fact that in only 2% of shoot-outs does the bad guy utilize the high rate of fire (how fast it shoots) and/or the high volume of fire (how many bullets are fired)...LCMs are involved in upto 26% of gun crimes. So this capability is largely superfulous and not utilized by crooks.
So once you actually look at the reasons why bad guys choose the gun they use...it is not about choice but market forces that are skewed towards supply not demand. Also, LCMs are not responsible for gun crimes. Nor is their impact, at 2% and 5%.
At 2/20/13 01:29 AM, Ceratisa wrote:
More in the link.
Thoughts anyone?
(Note to readers: The link above is to a new version of SB 5737, which no longer contains the disputed provision. The original version of the bill has been erased from the stateâEUTMs Web site, but here you can see it as it was proposed.)
Luckily, it has been taken out of the bill. However, this means that the ban may pass. (But at least it's a state level bill where such a ban is Constitutionally more acceptable.). But hey...style/apearance over substance...that's the Democrat/Liberal position on this issue. ;)
As for the constitutionality of this...I'd like to see Camaro's take on this. On the surface it seems like it would be struck down by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) as violating the 4th Amendment (search and seizure).
At 2/18/13 05:29 AM, emilywilliams wrote: Good show. "If more representatives of gun manufacturers, the NRA, and politicians that support the second amendment were as well spoken as Mr Morgan, there would be no discussion about a ban on 'assault' weapons" . Pretty much agree with the idea that gun control should be permitted. No topic today is more polarizing than firearm control. The President is considering 19 separate measures to further control the transfer of firearms.
Here's the problem Emily:
* We already have a level of gun control that is reasonable. Further efforts to control guns will not accomplish much other than draw resources away from programs that address the root causes of crime...and therefore would actually accomplish something in regards to lowering it. We've lowered the crime rate as far as we can with gun control.
* The president's measures will do nothing to stop people from dying. Assault rifles are very rarely used in crime. In 2012 of the 7,500 guns seized by the Chicago PD...only 300 were assault rifles or 0.04%. Hence, the assault weapons ban is just another government program that throws money at an imaginary program.
* The reason Piers Morgan looked so good in the early days of this resurgent debate is his guests were picked to make him look good. Alex Jones...really? You pick someone on the fringe? Or the president of the Gun Owners of America, the B-Team when it comes to making the pro-2nd amendment argument? After all, once he ran out of flamboyant pro-gunners he ran into people like Ben Shapiro. Morgan does not have empirical facts to back up his position.
Great topic Korriken.
Media's role in a democracy has always been a core problem for free societies.
The media can be disruptive:
* With the manhunt for Dorner, once they had him holed-up the police had to ask the media to not show live aerial feeds of the building since Dorner was presumed to have access to TV and the media copters would act as drones for him to keep tabs on the SWAT teams outside.
* When I worked flood relief we would spend 45 minutes throwing sandbags from one another to keep the Missouri River from overflowing the levy. It was hard work since we're talking about wet sandbags that weighed 45lbs dry. When we did have a chance to rest, it was usually cut short by some News 'copter flying overhead and the officers getting all nervous about us looking like we weren't doing anything.
The media exists in a free-market:
Just in my lifetime we have seen the rise of two things that displaced iconic media outlets: network news (which spans both the radio and TV age) and newspapers. The nightly news and their network affiliates now have to compete in a 24/7 news cycle in which the casual news consumer can just turn on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, etc anytime they want. Hell, CNN created a newschannel just for the ADD crowd when it created Headline News. Likewise, the internet has provided every Tom, Dick, and Harry to have a national and even global presence.
So they have to compete, and this means sensationalizing everything. Just look at violent crime. In the 1990s it shrank by 20%...but the media latched onto stories about violent crime and increased their coverage of this topic by 600%. Now people think that there is an epidemic.
The media can create bubbles:
I'm not talking about economic ones, but ideological ones. Most people find a news source that by and large agrees with their worldview and latches onto it. They don't read anything else or listen to another channel or watch another channel. Thus people's opinions become insular. That's why I try to read CNN, FOX, and Real Clear Politics (which links to a multitude of outlets across ideologies). In the car I switch between Sirius' Patriot and Left channels. For TV...I pretty much just watch the Nightly news.
====
In the end, this is why the founders wrote the Constitution so that only one part of the government would be directly elected: the passions of the masses are easily fanned to destructive ends. Back then people could still insulate themselves in terms of what paper they read...but they still had to interact in a community that was far more connected than it is today.
Perhaps we need to return to these founding principles.
At 2/17/13 07:26 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You guy's have to stop using logical fallacies to back your position up.
Actually, I use sound research conducted on this question. I do NOT use 'thought experiments' but instead realworld data to back my position up.
The pro-gun-control crowd on the other hand relies on the 'Appeal to Probablity' logical fallacy in their argument that less guns and/or banning certain types of firearms because it is probably the case. They have no empirical evidence to back it up. All they have is superficial descriptive statistics because when you start applying inferential statistics to realworld data sets the correlation between guns and crime is shown to be insignificant.
Furthermore, it appears that you are invoking the term 'logical fallacy' without understanding what a logical fallacy is. A logical fallacy is a conclusion that does not follow its premises. The arguments I have seen made by most pro-gun people on NG develop good premises and draw a sound, logical conclusion from them. I have seen many pro-gun control posters also post logically sound arguments...however their logic fails to translate into the realworld.
Proper argument on gun control -
1. ) "Gun Control Does Not Work"Gun control may not be 100% effective at reducing gun related crime and homicide but it does help dramatically reduce gun related crime and homicide.
The reason people such as myself and TonyDG make this claim is this is where the evidence leads us. My personal argument is that we already have 'common sense' and a reasonable level of gun control. And that there is not much more we can do with it. My suggestions for tweaking gun control:
* Provide an internet background check for person-to-person sales that is somewhere between $2-10. Put it on the internet so that it is readily available at gun shows in the age of smart phones and iPads.
* More states should adopt the Missouri way of selling guns to nonresidents: you have to live in a state touching Missouri, or live in Missouri due to military orders or college. In some states like Pennsylvannia they should even restrict sales to people from New york or New Jersey.
2. ) "The strictest gun control city's in the country are of the most violent."This statement is invalid as well as a logical fallacy argument as it implies and tries to guide the conversation in the direction that strict gun control creates more crime and violence.
This statement is based upon empirical data from realworld observation.
* We have had over 30 years of concealed carry laws in this country and have observed a decrease in crime in those states with it that is significantly larger than the nation-wide decrease in crime. On the other hand, more strict areas of the country have expereinced a slower decrease in the crime rate.
3. ) "Therefore gun control does not work."Please cite reputable facts without the use of an invalid logical fallacy that gun control raises gun related crime and homicide.
Again, I have posted time and time again links to scientific studies showing that gun control is not effective at reducing crime. These links have been to peer-reviewed, academic journals...one cannot get more reputable than that. That you have been too lazy to actually click on them (or lack the training and/or education to understand them) is not my fault.
Furthermore, my conclusions are not "an invalid logical fallacy"...a term I pointed out earlier that you abuse in your use thereof. They are structured, consistent, and support my conclusions. Furthermore, they are supported by realworld datasets.
At 2/16/13 01:54 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote: And americans still dont understand why they're the laughing stock of the world.
Do you have a point, or is resorting to irrelevancies an clever rhetorical stratagem?
But in answer to your clever and deep thought...if the whole world jumped off a bridge would you do it too?
At 2/16/13 01:54 PM, laughatyourfuneral wrote: And americans still dont understand why they're the laughing stock of the world.
Do you have a point, or is resorting to irrelevancies an clever rhetorical stratagem?
But in answer to your clever and deep thought...if the whole world jumped off a bridge would you do it too?
At 2/14/13 08:46 PM, S3C wrote:
so are you going to respond to my post(s) or continue to dodge the questions that are presented to you?
What exactly is your question again?
I remember your first couple of posts where you came onto this site touting just how smart you were compared to those of us poor plebes. Some day I will learn my lesson and not engage you in debate...after all how can I compete with such rhetorical skill:
At 2/12/13 07:49 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 2/12/13 06:57 PM, TheMason wrote: Umm...you do realize I am military and a hunter...Being a Fascist and neo Nazi (National Socialist) does not excuse ignorance it breeds it. Also Oath keeping is bullshit.
I did not realize that being in the US military automatically makes me a neo-Nazi (NOTE: considering neo-Nazis are paramilitary groups that are typically NOT supportive of the state...you would have been more correct to just say Nazi) or a fascist (again...in this context you do not capitalize fascist. Hm...I guess I may be a bit of grammar Nazi). Same with hunting.
And yes...brilliant point on my point about the Oath Keepers (in this context you should have capitalized 'Keeping'). Oh wait...I have never said anything about the Oath Keepers nor have I ever voiced or pledged support to them.
But then again, the best orators and debators always resort to name-calling when they do not have any command of the facts nor any credible counterpoint.
so I actually have the training, knowledge, and skills to be a bona fide authority on the subject... right?There is no justification for homicide and that includes doing the bidding for the power elite.
Wow...way to beat my point with an unrelated topic. We can talk about the justification for using lethal force, that is a good topic actually.
However, in what way does your belief establish any intellectual basis to call someone (who is a legitimate authority on a subject) ignorant.
If anyone is ignorant... it's you. You have yet to display any nuance or knowledge on this topic.I don't advocate gun violence or ownership in 99% of contexts. That being said there's nothing wrong with having an old shot gun on the farm to keep from being disturbed by Bears and other wildlife and what not.
Wow...again you really put me in my place! Despite the fact that you do not show any real intellectual authority on this topic...your emotionally charged drek definately establishes you as someone who's opinion anyone should care about!
At 2/12/13 09:09 PM, Shade wrote:
I'm fine with people owning automatic weapons and quite frankly I've no issue with gun owners I just don't see much point in owning a gun. I'm more of a sword guy myself.
Ah... the Napoleon Dynamite approach to self-defense.
The sword notion is just plain silly. In order to effectively wield a sword one must be very proficient with it. Further more it is of dubious social morality since it favors the strong over the weak. Guns equalize the equation. They help a 5'5" 110lbs woman defend herself from a 6'1" 250lbs male attacker.
The sword elevates the strong and martially skilled over the rights of the weak. Guns allow the weak freedom from fear.
At 2/12/13 04:16 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 2/12/13 01:11 PM, TheMason wrote:
Wow you truly are ignorant most gun advocates are though.
And neither are assault rifles! lol
Umm...you do realize I am military and a hunter...so I actually have the training, knowledge, and skills to be a bona fide authority on the subject... right?
If anyone is ignorant... it's you. You have yet to display any nuance or knowledge on this topic.
At 2/11/13 04:45 PM, Shade wrote:At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:Here I am stupidly assuming you'd answer my question.At 2/11/13 03:15 PM, Shade wrote:Why own an AR if you aren't assaulting anything?why? it doesn't matter why. when you get into the realm of "do you need it?" things go downhill very quickly.
The point is, that there are people saying they need to be banned with arguments that are by and large mostly made upon emotion rather than fact. Ergo, the onus is on people who support the AWB to actually articulate factual reasons why they need to be banned.
Instead all we get are emotional arguments that are not reflective of the reality of the gun crime phenomenon.
As for your question...
* The AR-15 is a good gun for ranchers taking out coyotes preying on cattle and other livestock.
* The AK-47 is a good alternative to a high powered hunting rifle if you're hunting in the brush and do not need all that power.
But in the end, assault rifles are rarely used in crime and when they are...they are far less effective than handguns or shotguns.
At 2/11/13 03:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:At 2/11/13 03:25 PM, Korriken wrote:why own toilet paper when you can use your fingers?...
None of those ^ are killing machines THAT'S WHY !
And neither are assault rifles! lol
At 2/11/13 08:20 PM, Saen wrote: I've seen how people hunt here in Florida, so my opinion of "hunting" and "hunters" in general is pretty low, unless if they use very traditional methods. It's my opinion that using a semi automatic of any kind for hunting takes the sport out of it.
Fair enough. However, the sport does not lie in how you operate the action (ie: bolt, lever, or auto). Instead, with ethical hunting it involves knowing the land and the deer or other game on your land. The skill difference between hunting with a bolt action vs hunting with a semi-auto is really the least significant part of hunting sportsmanship. If anything, it would make it more sporting because semi-autos are less accurate than bolt action rifles (this is why the majority of sniper rifles are bolt action and not semi-auto like the Barret or the Halo sniper rifle). Therefore, it requires the hunter to be a better shot.
on the other hand, when you are hunting the objective is to kill and kill efficiently and quickly. In terms of self-defense, the point is to stop the threat. I'm not going to kill someone who is just trying to steal my TV...but if you're trying to get to me after I've told you I've got a gun...I'm looking at using lethal force.So now I'm confused to why mass shooters, robbers, mafia members, etc. would even choose an assault rifle if they aren't effective lethal weapons?
Think about it...
In recent posts you were mocking me for putting forth the idea that high rates of fire and military ammo are the least capable of killing out there.
With the possible exception of Adam Lanza, the typical shooter does not know this. So they use 'common sense' and make the assumption that these type of rounds/guns will lead to more deaths. That's why I do not want to see internet ammo sales prohibited. A possible shooter goes on and see's 'mil-spec', 'military surplus', 'military' etc...they get that over HP or other more lethal ammo. Now if they go to the store they get this helpful store clerk who'll help them choose the most effective ammo for 'hunting'. So while they take time to plan out every other detail, since their logic does make sense in the absence of technical knowledge...they do not research it.
As for robbers, mafia members, and other criminals:
They do NOT use assault rifles. I read somewhere that in 2012 the Chicago police confiscated 7,500 guns used in crime. 300, or 0.04%, were assault rifles like the AR-15 or AK-47. Study after study shows that assault rifles are not used in crime. The vast majority of guns used in crime are handguns. In 1998 there was even a study, put out by the FBI I believe, that interveiwed inmates who were convicted of gun crime. Very few used assault rifles. Some even owned assault rifles...but used a hangun because the AK they had was for show or street cred only.
This is the problem with many people who are not versed on guns or the scholarship surrounding this issue. It is not that I think you are stupid or unreasonable. If you were stupid, you wouldn't be studying biology. And your assumptions are rational and reasonable if you lack gun knowledge. You see stuff on the news and come to think that the problem is greater than it is.
Consider this last point:
In the 1990s violent crime decreased by 20%, and yet media coverage increased by 600%. Polls showed that the public mistakenly thought that there was an epidemic of violence when actually the phenomenon was decreasing.
At 2/10/13 07:56 PM, Saen wrote:At 2/8/13 04:08 PM, TheMason wrote:You're making this an emotional issue by personally deciding what you would consider to be slutty clothing. There is no logical or technical way of measuring this, cultures and opinions, even among guys, vary on what's dressing too provocatively.
I'll end up having an academic basis that is as strong as the one upon you are building your house of cards. The difference between you and I is that you are looking at this purely through an emotional lense.
Umm...not at all? Afterall...I have already said that wearing any dress makes it easier than wearing jeans. I even brought up traditional housewife dresses...so I'm not singling out slutty clothes. So...your point fails.
Dressing in a bikini is about as "slutty" as you can get. Therefore, wouldn't rape be significantly higher at the beach more than any other area? Are rape incidences significantly higher during foam parties, nude parties, etc.? These are the types of scenarios you need to look up and find data in order to make your point valid, if you wish to be logical about it.
Sorry, but the bikini point falls on its face. You're talking about going to a public place in the middle of the day where there are tons of people...including families and a strong police presence. So guess what? This reduces risk of rape, and is a safe and appropriate place to dress this way.
As for naked parties these are controversial social experiements. Therefore, the people throwing the party have incentives to keep them safe. Furthermore, you're not walking to the party naked and in college towns where there is a bar district, walking past isolated dark areas that facilitate rape.
So sorry...but this is just obfuscation.
At 2/8/13 05:22 PM, poxpower wrote:At 2/8/13 04:48 PM, TheMason wrote:Because it is not about reducing the incidence of rape, but of making oneself less likely to be raped.Those are.. the exact same thing :O
If the incidence of rape is the same no matter how you dress, then it doesn't change how likely you are to be raped.
Um...no, not it is not the same thing. Incidence is the rate or how often something happens. What I'm talking about is an individual doing things that will either keep her from getting raped...or help her escape a rapist.
Now, to spell it out so we're on the same page of the dictionary...
* It does not effect the incidence of rape because the rapist still rapes...just someone else. Therefore it does not effect the overall trend...just the individual's life.
Yeah...I'm an asshole. I'm the father of a daughter and a husband. It's my job to be a prick!Well if you are making her dress in a specific way because you personally hold a false belief ( i.e. that rapists would be more likely to rape her simply because of clothes ) then you are an asshole haha. That's basically what the Muslim do with their burka bullshit, they think other guys will rape their wives if their wives dress "slutty" ( aka don't wear a hazmat suit 24/7 while outdoors).
False equivalency much?
* It is not a false belief. It cannot be proved or disproved. There is no data so at this point...it is neither false or true.
* Secondly, it is not just about rape prevention. If a guy has to fight with your clothes to get them off of you...it gives you time to either escape or have cries for help answered. This is basic self-defense and it works for both a woman at a club or a dude walking down the street. And this is not a false belief.
As for bringing up Muslims...
There is a difference between why they enforce (in some countries like Saudi Arabia) a strick dress code and what I'm talking about. I'm talking about taking preventative measures to protect yourself (that works in more than one situation). Whether it prevents a person from being raped is debateable as to whether or not it is a trend or just a few random cases. But I'm looking out for my kid's well-being.
In Muslim countries we're talking about a way to repress women. They are saying that women are asking for it, and are morally inferior temptresses who will lead men astray morally.
The instructor asked if the girl had any responsibility for what had happened to her. One NCO was unequivocable that she had no responsibility...that she was 100% a victim.Yeah well that's debatable I guess.
Legally, the rapists shouldn't get less time / punishment anyway, so really, whether she has 100% or 0% of the blame, the outcome is the same for the criminals.
And again...I am not saying that it should reduce the outcome for the criminal. Rapists belong in jail, rooming with large dicked sociopaths who get off on raping rapists every 8 hours.
On the other hand, people are responsible for their own actions. Like in the USAF while I waas on active duty, if I engaged in an activity that was high risk and did not use proper safety equipment and practices...and got hurt I'd be monetarily responsible for my injuries.
So yeah, I think we should teach women that while under no circumstances are they to blame for a rapist's action...there are things that she can do to keep from it happening that she is responsible for.
Well again, you are paying a price for your caution. The price is not wearing what you'd like to wear. If that gives you peace of mind even if it's not backed by evidence, that's called a "superstition", like carrying around your anti-lion rock in your pocket because you think it prevents lion attacks.
Umm...
1) It's not necessarily superstition if, in terms of one aspect of an activity, there is no evidence either way.
2) The clothing you wear does have an effect on how an assault (whether sexual or not) goes down. Wearing high heels can make running away problematic whether we're talking about a rapist, mugger, or lion. Wearing hard-to-get-off pants gives a woman more chances to escape and for someone to respond to her cries for help.
So here again, the price seems small, but how much less likely would she be to get raped depending on her clothing? 10%? 1%? 0.00001%?
It matters.
Yes, but does it also help her in the case of she is raped?
At 2/10/13 08:22 PM, Saen wrote:
Also, you dont have to shoot randomly and as fast as you can to have a high rate of fire, burst fire is incredibly effective at maintaining a high accuracy to fire rate ratio.
Actually, you start making a good point. In Sandy Hook, the shooter appears to have taken aimed shots rather than spray and pray. This allowed him to put more rounds on target. However...there are a few problems with this:
* It took like 6-11 rounds to kill. Whereas someone like Cho could (using the same strategy) be just as effective with 6-11x less ammo.
* Burst fire is not 'incredibly effective' at being more accurate...I've shot on burst fire. I've been trained on it. It is only to be used for supressing fire.
Obviously I don't care about how the gun looks, I am concerned about the combined lethality of an accurate, high capacity, legal, semi automatic weapon. When you have accuracy, a high potential rate of fire, and large round capacity combined, that is a combination to be concerned about.
I'll give it to you that on first blush it is something to be concerned about. But when you look into the technical aspect of it (which tends to be objective rather than subjective)...these concerns dissolve.
* At the ranges we are talking about, the accuracy of an AK vs. a handgun vs. a shotgun vs. deer rifle disappear.
* At a high potential rate of fire...accuracy disappears and you end up with less people hurt and less people killed.
* Studies have shown that LCMs (large capacity magazines) are not a factor in gun crime when talking about assault rifles. There is some evidence to suggest it has an effect when used in pistols. However, in terms of public policy we have to look at whether or not we will have any return on investment spending time and money on LCM ans, AWB bans, or things that actually address the causes of gun crime.
If magazine capacity was limited to 10 rounds in an assault rifle, I would have no problem with the legality of assault rifles. Or high capacity assault rifles were limited to bolt action (which is obviously silly and defeats the purpose of the gun), you understand the point I'm making here about combined lethality? I don't understand why limiting magazine capacity is such an outrageous claim to make.
* COMBINED LETHALITY: I understand the point you are articulating. The problem: while reasonable and logical on the surface...it does not really exist. The combination of accuracy, rate of fire, and magazine capacity do not equal what you think they do. Rate of fire (even burst) eliminates accuracy. It also eliminates anything gained from having a LCM.
If these guns were capable of what you claim them to be capable of (claims you are making to a military member trained on these weapons)...why are they not used in crime?
* It is outrageous because it won't save lives. It will divert money, time, and resources from programs that could actually stop gun crime. LCMs are ubiquitous, easy to make, and virtually impossible to ban at this point. You're tilting at windmills, and yet think you'll be accomplishing something.
At 2/10/13 07:34 PM, Saen wrote:At 2/8/13 10:01 AM, TheMason wrote:The facts of hunting? I'm talking about the sport of it. All I'm saying is I wouldn't go bragging around about how I shoot deer with an AK-47, it's not hunting it's fucking wasteful and retarded.
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.
Even talking about the sport of it...the facts do not support you.
* The AK round requires you to be closer to a deer than traditional deer rounds like the .270 or 30-30.
* Also, I use iron sights when hunting with my AK instead of a scope so I have to be a lot more accurate and have more skill.
Again, you fail to demonstrate why/how it is not hunting but instead 'wasteful' and 'retarded'. At this point, it appears you are only speaking from uninformed assumptions.
Here's some examples:
Stockton,Ca:
A playground is a more open and much larger area than a classroom, higher chance to miss.
It is more about spray and pray than range. That's what made him uneffective...that he did not aim.
N. Hollywood:Cover fire, lol don't even try this one.
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.
Um...they peppered responding police officers. There was a component of suppressing fire...but they were allso actively trying to kill the police. They hit 17 afterall.
Aurora, Co:We will see.
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.
Um...there is no 'we will see'...70 people were hit. Less than half that number of rounds came out of his AR-15.
So we're allowed to "defend" ourselves in this country with hollow points, but international law has deemed use of hp's unethical, haha. Either way the discussion was on our military's use of assault rifles, you saying that the are ineffective at killing and me asking which gun would you suggest our military use in ground warfare?
...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.
Yes, according to international law the use of HP, JHP, Soft Lead Core bullets are considered unethical and illegal according to international law. This is fact.
Now...this is the first time you've asked for my suggestion of what gun our military should use in ground warfare. Maybe you asked in reply to someone else...but not to me directly. So let's not obfuscate that you don't know what you're talking about and pretend that I'm ignoring reasonable questions raised by you.
But in answer to your question:
Personally, I would change from the M-16 to AK-47. It is a more reliable assault rifle, and reasonably accurate.
But that is besides the point: I would NOT suggest that we change from FMJ ammo.
* It reduces unnecessary suffering in war.
* If you kill an enemy soldier, you take out one soldier. If you wound a soldier, then his buddies are tied up getting him off the battlefield...so you effectively take out three enemy soldiers.
* If you kill a soldier it costs less and takes less resources to deal with the body than if you merely wound the soldier. This helps drain the enemy's ability to make war faster.
See Saen...this is another example of the ignorance of the majority of gun-control advocates. You think that because it is military and war...the objective of ground war is not necessarily killing the enemy.
on the other hand, when you are hunting the objective is to kill and kill efficiently and quickly. In terms of self-defense, the point is to stop the threat. I'm not going to kill someone who is just trying to steal my TV...but if you're trying to get to me after I've told you I've got a gun...I'm looking at using lethal force.
At 2/7/13 05:30 PM, poxpower wrote:At 2/7/13 04:55 PM, TheMason wrote: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.Does it? It if doesn't actually increase the incidence of rape, how is it relevant?
Because it is not about reducing the incidence of rape, but of making oneself less likely to be raped. I'm not saying that I want anyone to get raped. But I've got a 14yo daughter, and I would rather her be the one who goes out attractively and stylishly dressed in jeans/pants and have a rapist choose her friend who is dressed in some sort of skirt. If the rape is going to happen I don't want it to be my kid or my wife.
If dressing less vulnerably makes it another girl...my heart goes out to that girl and her family...but I'll be honest in that I'm thankful for whatever kept my kid safe.
Yeah...I'm an asshole. I'm the father of a daughter and a husband. It's my job to be a prick!
You may have arguments about it taking 5 minutes longer or being slightly harder, but does that deter anyone from raping a girl?
It may not deter the rapist from raping a girl...but it may deter a rapist from raping a particular girl.
====
Think about it this way, say a guy goes out with the intent of slipping a girl a drug and making her vulnerable. Now he targets my daughter, but she knows that she should:
* Not accept an opened drink from a stranger.
* Not leave a drink unattended.
* Not allow herself to become isolated from her friends or a public area.
The guy may choose another target over her. My daughter probably did not stop a rape from happening...but she took preventative measures to reduce her chances that the girl victimized was her.
We live in a free society where people can express themselves however, and largely live their lives how they see fit. We have no fashion police like say Saudi Arabia. If my daughter follows these guidelines and her friend does not...and the guy with the roofie decides to assault the girl in a dress not paying attention to her drink instead of her...then I think there is some degree of responsibility for the woman not using common sense to protect herself.
Kind of like the last USAF Sexual Assault Prevention & Response training I had to take. They showed a news story of an underage girl visiting a college campus. She got drunk (even though she was a HS senior) and passed out in a frat house bedroom. She was in the middle of a gang rape when two of the girls at the party with her intervened. And she was passed out due to alcohol...not drugs.
The instructor asked if the girl had any responsibility for what had happened to her. One NCO was unequivocable that she had no responsibility...that she was 100% a victim.
But I disagree. Had she not been drinking when she was not even legal to do so...she would not have passed out. Especially given that she was essentially surrounded by strangers. She would not have passed out in a strange male's bedroom.
Now in this case her clothes were irrelevent. But, considering that in other cases how you dress can make you more vulnerable...better to err on the side of caution don't you think.
====
Then there are the self-defense aspects of some clothing restricts your ability to get away (ie: long and/or tight dresses) and the longer it takes for him to get it off...the better your chance of someone hearing your cries for help your squirming out of his grasp and getting away.
Prevent a potential rape (Suggestion #5.)
At 2/7/13 05:22 PM, Saen wrote: So you're taking that route I see. ...
Then after finding nothing take a step back and realize how ridiculous the point you're making is.
I'll end up having an academic basis that is as strong as the one upon you are building your house of cards. The difference between you and I is that you are looking at this purely through an emotional lense. I'm trying to look at it from a risk mitigation perspective that is supported by the professional experience of the deputies at my Lodge and the cop friends I've got through my ANG unit. (It came up when Slutwalks were momentarily en vogue.)
They seem to be of the opinion, from their own experience (one of whom was a cop on a State U. campus) that some clothing does make a girl a better potential victim than others.
Therefore, all I'm saying is why wear something that is going to increase your chances (even if by a little) of being raped? I'm not calling for public dress codes or banning certain clothing...just be smart about things before you go out.
Since there is a lack of data to point me in either direction...I'll go with the opinions of professionals who are authorities on the subject rather than someone like you who lacks any observable semblence of authority on this topic.
