Comments on: Comments on 9879

Post number 9879

GriffX — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 18:46:53 -0800

So, if my pizza's 30 minutes late, do I get a personal apology from Uncle Enzo?
"In Nevada, a 55-acre community called Front Sight, featuring streets with names like Second Amendment Drive and Sense of Duty Way, is being built for gun enthusiasts (people who buy an acre plot get lifetime use of the 22 planned ranges, an Uzi machinegun and a safari in Africa). In Baton Rouge, Louisiana, one gated community seems to have been taken over by black rap stars."

By: atfrost

atfrost — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 18:58:21 -0800

Uzi. Nice. Maybe it's a secret training ground for the war in Zion.

By: hadashi

hadashi — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:06:38 -0800

Having just re-read Snow Crash, I loved the intro. What a horrible way to live; personally, I'd rather have a real neighborhood. Are they out of fashion now? My friends that have bought property in normal subdivisions find it miserable - I can't imagine living in one of these. A 'burbclave, indeed. And, one nit - I don't think they are getting an "Uzi machinegun". Probably a semi-auto. Either way, it's a pretty crappy little weapon. If they were truly worried about home defense then they'd just get a simple pump shotgun. I realize that GriffX was only copying from the original article.

By: caraig

caraig — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:10:45 -0800

Land of the free, home of the depraved...

By: aramaic

aramaic — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:23:33 -0800

Uzi: their choice of weapon merely proves that these folks aren't interested in home defense, they're interested in proving their "manliness". ...unless they're getting safety ammo, those rounds will go straight through their sheetrock walls, neatly killing their kids in bed, and probably shooting the neighbor next door for good measure.

By: atfrost

atfrost — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:34:31 -0800

Wouldn't it be funny if they only got ONE uzi that all of the residents had to share? They would probably begin infighing just for the use of the weapon. At any rate, that's one point that the article didn't clarify ^_~

By: kindall

kindall — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:43:02 -0800

It'll be fascinating to look at crime stats for that community in a decade or two, if nothing else.

By: rdr

rdr — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:58:50 -0800

I believe most murders are committed by friends or family. If that's true, then the crime stats are likely to be pretty bad.

By: dopamine

dopamine — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 19:59:30 -0800

I'm not moving in until I can get an AK or an M-16. Not worth it otherwise . . . Uzi?? That's like the N'Sync of home semi-automatic weapons.

By: benjh

benjh — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 20:08:28 -0800

They get an uzi? Do they also get a penis enlargement? Seems like that would be safer for the surrounding people than the Uzi, and would probably have the same effect.

By: skallas

skallas — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 20:11:48 -0800

Not the community in question but: Why did one young mother come here? "Because it's safe, because there are activities, because it's, well, like us." Super Suburbs anyone?

By: dopamine

dopamine — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 20:15:58 -0800

With this gun/penis-size relationship being tossed about, how does one explain chicks who like guns, because I know a number of those. Penis-envy, perhaps?

By: hadashi

hadashi — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 20:17:14 -0800

rdr: You believe incorrectly.

By: benjh

benjh — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 20:36:11 -0800

Chicks who like guns, at least the chicks I know, tend to either (1) not really like guns but want them for protection, and feign interest in order to (a) keep the man she is with happy about it (b) make it look like she really likes the guns for show purposes or (c) is a lesbian OR (2) like the power, the recoil, the heat... the shooting off and pushing back, and then repeating, such is could be considered a form of penis envy, or she is a lesbian.

By: edlundart

edlundart — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 21:01:14 -0800

From hadashi's link: another way of looking at it is, more martial artists are probably murdered by non-gun methods than they kill in self-defense. Would we conclude that it is best to avoid learning a martial art for self-defense based on such a "nonsense ratio?" Note the use of the word probably in the above quote... Anyway, it's a flawed analogy. If you are a martial artist you do not defend yourself with the intention to kill. Furthermore, how many Americans are "martial artists" vs gun-owners? And do you really think a lot of martial artists get killed by non-gun methods?

By: kindall

kindall — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 21:03:19 -0800

I believe most murders are committed by friends or family. If that's true, then the crime stats are likely to be pretty bad. Even if that were true, there are more types of crimes than murder.

By: GriffX

GriffX — Tue, 04 Sep 2001 21:18:23 -0800

OK - to quote from the article hadashi posted: The oft quoted Kellermann paper claims a homeowner's gun is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck appropriately terms this the "nonsense ratio." Kellermann states, "for every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms." Although this study was published in 1986 its findings continue to be uncritically cited in medical journals, government publications, and non-technical periodicals such as health newsletters, general interest magazines, op-ed pieces, letters-to-the editor, etc. OK, so the Kellerman study is 'uncritically cited...'? I see absolutely no data on this - ahem - Guncite.com page that would make it worthy of anything other than a letter to the editor, at best. The author takes as example a very small section from the original paper, offhandedly discounts the stats as meaningless, and then offers absolutely nothing to back up his opinions other than the always classic "What is truly sad about this..." closing graph. Then closes it with a link to the National Review in his For Further Reading section at the bottom. And provides a 'Notes' section providing 'calculations' - which link to the original essay's main points with #target tags. Although, you gotta love a conservative site that still thinks you can inspire righteous indignitude by putting a defiant quote from Jefferson under your masthead. Jefferson being a big fan of automatic weapons, and all.

By: RevGreg

RevGreg — Wed, 05 Sep 2001 01:21:59 -0800

Uzi: their choice of weapon merely proves that these folks aren't interested in home defense, they're interested in proving their "manliness". An Uzi "manly?!" Oh please! They only become semi-manly when they are rebarreled for .45 ACP ammunition. You only get manly when using rifle caliber cartridges and you get the firing rate up around the 1000 rounds per minute range. Like the MG-40/ANM2 my one friend has, THAT'S manly. Home defense? I have a very light, aluminum framed eight shot pistol - more than adequate because I *know* how to use it and have rather lethal ammunition for it. Also, I will testify that Front-Site's firearms training courses are second to none. You would be surprised at the results of even one day of training. Oh, and as for spraying bullets around, er, most people who aren't idiots use subguns in the semi-auto position for most targets - I myself can do a two or three round burst from an Uzi on full auto, which is how the gun is properly used. Chicks who like guns, at least the chicks I know, tend to either (1) not really like guns but want them for protection, and feign interest in order to (a) keep the man she is with happy about it (b) make it look like she really likes the guns for show purposes or (c) is a lesbian OR (2) like the power, the recoil, the heat... the shooting off and pushing back, and then repeating, such is could be considered a form of penis envy, or she is a lesbian. Yo Ben, you hang around some seriously fucked up women then. The addition of the bit connecting female gun use with psychosexual drives is great though - you should take that shit on the road. That all said, I think it's a pretty lousy idea. Now if they were handing out AMD-65's I'd be sold...

By: vbfg

vbfg — Wed, 05 Sep 2001 02:56:40 -0800

"Most people who aren't idiots..." That just leaves a minority of non-idiots plus the idiots themselves.

By: Mars Saxman

Mars Saxman — Wed, 05 Sep 2001 07:50:12 -0800

It's the new contract-based nondemocratic government forms that bother me most about these planned communities. A great many people live racially segregated lives anyway; it's very little worse if they all move off to a suburb together. The real danger in these CC&R based communities is their adoption of "love it or leave it" as a governing principle. You either accept the terms they offer, live under the restrictions they impose, and adjust the visible aspects of your life to fit, or you find somewhere else to live. Well, what happens when there *is* nowhere else to live? For larger families, that day may arrive rather soon. -Mars

By: preguicoso

preguicoso — Wed, 05 Sep 2001 09:28:00 -0800

The Feds aren't going to like a proliferation of heavily-armed intentional communities. They don't have such a good track record with that kind of thing....

By: wackybrit

wackybrit — Wed, 05 Sep 2001 11:27:07 -0800

This type of community sounds okay to me. I'd rather not live within 100 yards of anyone else, but I can see why these communities are popular. Many 'real' towns have lost the sense of community that they had even 30 years ago. In England, it's not uncommon to not know who your neighbours are, and a recent survey showed that 50% of kids don't even play with other kids during the summer holidays. These artificial communities could certainly blossom into healthy communities in the traditional sense. Seems like a good way around a modern problem to me.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Wed, 05 Sep 2001 16:48:27 -0800

as long as they stay out of michigan

By: ieyasu

ieyasu — Wed, 05 Sep 2001 22:11:01 -0800

"The author takes as example a very small section from the original paper," Have you read the paper? That's all there is to it, the 43:1 ratio. "offhandedly discounts the stats as meaningless," Not at all. The tables explain why the ratio is meaningless by analyzing non-gun deaths. It doesn't require a great deal of exposition to explain why the ratio is meaningless. "And provides a 'Notes' section providing 'calculations' - which link to the original essay's main points with #target tags." The 'calculations' are merely showing how the numbers were derived. I doubt you really read the paper in question. It's a pretty simple paper based on that simple sillly ratio. "...a defiant quote from Jefferson under your masthead." That quote doesn't seem defiant at all to me. How do you find it so???

By: ieyasu

ieyasu — Thu, 06 Sep 2001 05:33:13 -0800

"Anyway, it's a flawed analogy. If you are a martial artist you do not defend yourself with the intention to kill." Irrelevant. The study in question only looks at the advisability of keeping a gun in the home based on a kill-ratio. "Furthermore, how many Americans are "martial artists" vs gun-owners?" Again irrelevant, for the same reason. Using Kellermann's ratio you shouldn't learn a martial art or have a gun in the home. "And do you really think a lot of martial artists get killed by non-gun methods?" No, but then 99 percent of gun owners don't get murdered by their guns either. Again though, it's irrelevant to the point Kellermann attempts to make. He ignores defensive use of guns which far more outnumber kills, and the fact that suicides are highly substitutable. Also, none of the above posts refutes the main point of the Kellermann refutation, ie., that using Kellermann's methodology to non-firearm violent death, the risk factor more than doubles from 43 to 1, to 99 to 1.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Thu, 06 Sep 2001 06:15:00 -0800

tokugawa- i think he was being cynical. Jefferson was no bundle of personal courage, but he could spin a quote better then most. The quote is relevant in context.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Thu, 06 Sep 2001 06:17:01 -0800

tokugawa- first day-two comments- I LIKE IT. keep it up.

By: ieyasu

ieyasu — Thu, 06 Sep 2001 18:10:28 -0800

clavdivs - Well I hope you're right that griffix was being cynical/sarcastic with his post, but I kind of doubt it. I'm pretty cynical myself. I hope you're right! "Jefferson was no bundle of personal courage, but he could spin a quote better then most." Agreed. One could use Jefferson as one would use proverbs, ie., find a quote to back one's viewpoint. "The quote is relevant in context." Agreed. It's an admonition rather than defiance.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Fri, 07 Sep 2001 06:51:41 -0800

like the name. i was considering using toyotomi for user name, but im as japanese as jerry lewis. look forward to reading your comments.