instinct vs statistics

Post Reply New Topic

@ dox47 we have crossed swords on guns and gun control in the past, but I have to admit a recent episode (recent here) of mythbusters left me in awe, have you seen the ep where they chop a friggin tree down with a mini gun in half the time it takes a chainsaw?

Hmm, I remember crossing swords with you on the ethics of working in the armaments industry, but I don't recall debating gun control directly. Remember though how we do agree on why drug prohibition doesn't work because anyone who really wants drugs can always get them? That's going to come back to haunt you if we seriously debate the subject...

Yes, externally powered guns are pretty amazing, though from an engineering standpoint I consider them cheating a bit. If I recall, the M134 Minigun was made by General Electric Corporation and had a selectable rate of fire of 4000 or 6000 rounds per minute, or 100 per second at the higher setting, pretty damn fast. Incidentally, the reason it's called a "mini" gun is that it's a scaled down version of the 20mm Vulcan cannon found on F14 Tomcats, which fires shells at 7200 rpm, or 120 rounds per second. There is also a seven barreled variant in 30mm mounted in the nose of the A-10 attack aircraft that fires depleted uranium shells capable of defeating tank armor, that's actually the one they used a lot in Iraq, leading to concerns of DU contamination.

I have not actually seen the Mythbusters episode, but now I'll have to check it out, I usually enjoy that show but don't see it too often since I don't watch TV. I have knocked a tree down with a .50 rifle though, it took a lot more shots than I thought it would, even though the tree was already dead. I wouldn't call it an efficient means of timber clearance, especially not at $3 a shot...

Bring IT

Given that you've already admitted that government prohibitions are infective as a means of controlling dangerous items, I'm not sure what there's left for me to bring. I could link a bunch of charts and statistics showing that most gun laws are ineffective, but I really don't wish to hijack the thread any more than I already have. To stay within the original topic though, I will continue in the vein that statistically gun violence is a very rare form of death, but the gun control people expend huge amounts of time and energy worrying about it and causing people such as myself endless grief. I would love to be able to simply enjoy my guns in peace (ha ha!) but am forced to constantly fight a defensive action against legions of shrill people who are reacting emotionally to a problem that's not what they think it is.

To take a particularly good example from the fray, let's talk about so called "assault weapons" for a moment. Anti gun people fixate on them because they're scary looking, and easy to get the public riled up about. What they don't tell you is that they're statistically unlikely to be involved in crime, and the Clinton era ban on them had a negligible effect on crime. They are not designed for crime, so they tend to be heavy, bulky, hard to conceal, and generally ill suited for the purpose. Yet to hear the Bradey Campaign people tell it every dealer on the street is packing an AK under his warm ups. To say that the statistics don't bear this out it to be kind, yet people buy into it and get into my face about why I won't support "common sense gun control" like an assault weapons ban? Why would I want to support a law that hampers lawful citizens while inconveniencing actual criminals not at all? Yet I'm the one who get's painted as the "nut" because I'm going by the numbers, not the emotions.

What I will support is throwing the book at anyone using a firearm in a crime of violence, make it an automatic enhancement, tack on 5 years. That kind of law targets criminals, without impinging upon the freedoms of legitimate gun owners such as myself, but we never hear that kind of law being proposed by the anti-gun crowd. Personally, I think they're afraid that laws like that would work, and they would lose their emotional leverage to go for stricter bans. It sounds ugly, but why else would groups oppose measures that would achieve their stated aim, and are amenable to their legislative foe? I want to streets to be safer too, but I also want to be able to legally enjoy my shooting sports lifestyle.

Finally, we get to the hard part, where I'm probably going to lose you Arthur. Every freedom worth having is worth fighting for, and has it's sacrifices. Civilian gun ownership is a very important freedom that is in serious decline worldwide, and that's a shame. The right to own a gun is in affect the right to choose your own destiny, to have the ultimate control over your own life. It's a lot of freedom, a lot of power and responsibility, and it has it's costs. In the US it costs around 13,000s live a year, not including suicides. Guns are used defensively an estimated 100-000 -1,000,000 times a year, there's a lot of debate going on over the exact numbers. I happen to think it's worth the cost, the 13,000 dead include criminals shot by the cops, inmates that were executed, gang members that where assassinated on corners, it's a high price, but a fair one. Who knows just how many lives are in the "saves" pile every year because of all of those defensive incidents? My ex is in the "save" pile due to her quick thinking with a Glock26 on a dark road one Phoenix night, and there are thousands just like her. Again I'll say it, it's a high price, but a fair price.

^ If I lived in a country that had rampant gun ownership, I might be fearful enough to carry a gun. Thankfully I do not. I live in a country where any shooting makes it to the news, quite often nationally. Would this be the case if we had the same guns laws as the US personally I don't think so. And yes we have had some shocking shootings but bad as they are the general feeling is that there is little chance of being gunned down.


With regard to 'Bring It' I miss understood your post, thought you were going to challenge my views on drug use further.

Though I agree that people have an inherent right to bear arms so as to protect themselves from persecution, I think that non lethal means are more effective. Phasers and other directed energy weapons are now a reality. This is what I would prefer. It has lethal as well as non lethal control settings. The phaser I am referencing is a preliminary model based upon increasing the electrical conductivity of a coherent light channel so as to allow a high voltage source to travel from point A. to point B.. With the advances in physics and electrical engineering im sure we could construct a device that outperforms this with relative ease.

Phasers?

I'm familiar with a crowd control device that uses microwaves, but never phasers.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001563.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon

A more thorough search will yield more results. If you search enough you may be able to find the article which describes the construction. I am aware of at least 3 devices which have already been constructed. I have not yet seen one that is pocket sized though im sure one could be built.

Oh, well boy is my face red I meant that I was going to turn your own arguments regarding drug prohibition against you if we ever argued gun control. I actually agree with you for the most part on drugs, and drug policy reform is my own pet solution for reducing violent crime. The area where we disagree is that I believe you consider marijuana to be a much more dangerous drug due to your personal history with it, where I think that it's relatively harmless, certainly no more dangerous than alcohol. I think anything can be abused, but I don't think it's the job of the government to protect people from themselves, especially if by "protect" they mean "throw you in jail".

Depends on what you mean by "effective". It sounds like you are talking about an electrolaser, which is a very cool idea, but isn't really out of the prototype phase yet. Supposedly they may be testing a model in Iraq as an IED detonator, but the details are very sketchy. Nevertheless, what we are talking about is essentially a Taser without wires, and that weapon is far from perfect. You've got only one shot, limited range, and it doesn't always work due to differences is physiology and mental state. That last one is a big problem with electroshock weapons, they don't always work the same way on everybody. A very famous case in which a Taser failed to work was Rodney King, he simply ripped the darts out and laughed, think of how differently THAT would have turned out had the Taser worked! Turn the voltage up and you risk doing serious damage, and you may as well carry a gun. Non-lethals are great, and I carry a variety of them myself, but always backed up by a firearm. The problem is that no less lethal weapon yet produced offers the reliability and stopping power of a firearm, the "phasers on stun" is the holy grail on non lethal research. Since the only reason I would ever use my gun on somebody would be that they were violently attacking me or someone around me, let's just say that their long term health isn't my number one concern. The only thing I'd get out of less lethal would be greater flexibility of usage, but then again I might be tempted to use it when not justified, as can sometimes be seen with American cops and the Taser.

I used a directed energy weapon once. Specifically, it converted chemical energy to kinetic energy, discharging a metal projectile at high velocity.

It was called a 'Mauser K.98'.

Gut reaction is different from an emotional response. A gut reaction is more intellectual than emotions. Emotional responses have no basis in fact whereas a gut reaction is more accurate than a purely analytical one. That is why successful business people often give credit to this instinct.

An emotional response is personal. In any kind of sales, emotion is key to getting the person to buy the product or idea. Even if a person prides himself on being purely intellectual, this in itself produces an emotion which will sells the person on a product or idea.

I rely on my gut. It's a great BS detector. But my emotions are like demons I have to control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/28/scien ... ref=slogin

@ dox47 yeah after I went ot bed I realised what you were talking about and it made me think about gun laws vs gun culture. This is not something that I can debate fully because I am not up on all the facts. From what I know Canada and some Scandinavian countries have more guns per capita than the US, but have nowhere near the human shootings. So you are probably correct that gun control will not solve the problem you guys have, and anyhow restricting guns in the US would be a lot like shutting the stable door after ALL the horses had bolted.

So where does the answer lie (and no chever as much as we both want a numeric it is not 42). I suspect it is in social reform moving towards more social equality in the US or at the very least some form of poverty alleviation. There needs to be a change in the gun culture as well. From what I can gather gun ownership in Canada is primarily for hunting and protection from wildlife where as gun ownership in the US is directed at protecting oneself and family from other humans. The causes for this need to be researched and rectified.

With regard to cannabis the dangers of it are well documented, and the fallacy that it is a soft drug needs to be challenged, education is the answer, I mean there is no point banning something you can grow in your bedroom.

There is all the evidence in the world to suggest that OR modeling is better than gut instinct on the part of executives. If it isn't, then the model either doesn't exist yet or is somehow flawed.

I don't understand what you just said Chever. Can you explain? Don't laugh, I really want to learn.

I appreciate statistics, but sometimes things look better on paper and don't hold true in real life. There are too many variables when dealing with human nature. That is why I trust my instincts when it comes to dealing with people. Anything can be rationalized.

Evolution is a prime example of why people have condoned the enslavement of others. Intellectually it is sound. Emotionally, it can serve or enrage the person depending on how it serves that individual. Gut instincts and conscience seem to hold more merit for me. However, I am open to suggestions.

Start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research