[ocrenter]

[quote=zk]

There’s a huge problem with the analysis right there. They used BMI to determine whether a person is of normal weight or not. BMI is totally useless. Quite laughably, it doesn’t even account for gender. Let alone bone structure or muscularity. I’m not sure why anyone uses BMI for anything.[/quote]

there’s going to be intrinsic problems with any attempt to measure the entire human population with a standard index.

that said, BMI is actually quite accurate for the general population. With professional athletes being the most obvious exception to the rule. Bone structure, surprisingly, is very similar in folks within the same height and gender group, so unfortunately the “big bone” theory is a myth.

What is more problematic is how we interpret the BMI. Unfortunately, for the most part, this country does a poor job figuring out that the BMI scale is very different for the various racial groups.

For example, criteria of BMI of 30 and higher is the state of obesity, a time when metabolic syndrome takes hold and leads to morbidity. The latest study confirms that folks can get up to BMI of 29 and still do quite well. Well, this really only apply to people with Western European/Northern European ancestry.

For African Americans, that BMI threshold should be higher at 33. For Mediterraneans and the Middle Easterners, that BMI threshold should be around 27. Same goes for Hispanics. As for East Asians, now you are looking at 25. For Southeast Asians, that threshold is more like 23.

We are suppose to be a multi-racial society, yet BMI wise we are all just Western Europeans. Go figure that one out.

[ocrenter]

[quote=squat300]I’m trying to close a refi at 3.375. Problems. Final hurdle seems to be a last minute demand I put a sink in downstairs bathroom. Triggered potential marital discord. Ended up going to home depot late last night and buying a sink and vanity for $49.99 and faucet for $11.58. Now I have running water but having trouble lining up the p trap for draining.

Will they check if I just leave a bucket down there?

Understanding is wife can chuck this sink at will.[/quote]

uh… am I missing something here? how do you have a bathroom without a sink??? how do you wash your hands after taking care of business?

[ocrenter]

so where is the spending cut part? I’m liking the cliff more and more…

[ocrenter]

[quote=zk]

True. True indeed.

I have, however, also tried to engage in a meaningful discussion about gun laws. And suddenly, everyone who was talking about Switzerland has disappeared. The only responses have been, “I’m a badass and you’re a pussy.” So I responded in kind. Not my best post, I agree. In fact, to put it in my own words, it was retarded. I’d prefer to discuss the matter reasonably. Any takers?[/quote]

Bottom line from this discussion: America loves its guns. When you are dealing with a beloved object of affection, you will get very heated and emotional arguments thrown at you when you try to talk about regulation and restriction.

[ocrenter]

How large is the area involved? Is it just the grass? Or other area of the yard? Are we just looking at bare ground? Or is the area woodchipped? did you place weed barriers? Weedkiller should do the job, but if the area involved is broad, you may need other strategies.

Can we get some pictures?

[ocrenter]

[quote=dumbrenter]

All the above + compulsory training paid all paid by you for dog training. The Feds should be in touch with both you and the dog, just in case you are abusing the dog.
And in case of 1 dog attack, all the dogs in the county should be put down, the owners fined heavily and forced by state to clean up dog poop on our trails, parks and pathways.
Our kids need to be safe from the dogs and their owners since they are percentage wise worse than gun owners.
And BTW 2nd amendment does not cover right to own dogs.[/quote]

You are right, I seen a dog kill 30 people in a couple of minutes, creating up to 10 life ending bites in each of his victims.

But now the National Kennel Club is insisting the solution is MORE dogs. Mandatory mass murdering dogs on every campus so if one of these rapid biting and rapid pooping breeds show up, they can be handled appropriately.

Can’t we just be civil and responsible like the Swiss?

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter]No, I favor the “sense of civic and social responsibility” over gun control. If everybody was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., there would be very few homicides, no matter how many guns are in our society. Of course, if everyone was respectful, law-abiding, considerate, etc., (including all people in power) we wouldn’t really need guns.

I think we should do background checks on anybody who wants to buy a gun, and violent felons should obviously not be able to own or possess a gun…but how do we prevent the data from background checks from making it to some kind of “registration list” that can be used to track down law-abiding gun owners?[/quote]

hmmm… how many here are not in favor of “sense of civic and social responsibility”…

I think under the big umbrella of “gun control”, issues such as background checks as well as maybe even psychiatric assessment and mandatory reporting by physicians and psychiatric professionals should all be part of the discussion. squat1000’s point about responsibility and liability on part of the gun owner and I’ll add the gun owner’s estate should be on the table as well.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter]More on the Swiss:

“Switzerland trails behind only the U.S, Yemen and Serbia in the number of guns per capita; between 2.3 million and 4.5 million military and private firearms are estimated to be in circulation in a country of only 8 million people. Yet, despite the prevalence of guns, the violent-crime rate is low: government figures show about 0.5 gun homicides per 100,000 inhabitants in 2010. By comparison, the U.S rate in the same year was about 5 firearm killings per 100,000 people, according to a 2011 U.N. report.”

“…One of the reasons the crime rate in Switzerland is low despite the prevalence of weapons — and also why the Swiss mentality can’t be transposed to the current American reality — is the culture of responsibility and safety that is anchored in society and passed from generation to generation. Kids as young as 12 belong to gun groups in their local communities, where they learn sharpshooting. The Swiss Shooting Sports Association runs about 3,000 clubs and has 150,000 members, including a youth section. Many members keep their guns and ammunition at home, while others choose to leave them at the club. And yet, despite such easy access to pistols and rifles, “no members have ever used their guns for criminal purposes,” says Max Flueckiger, the association’s spokesperson.

“Social conditions are fundamental in deterring crime,” says Peter Squires, professor of criminology and public policy at the University of Brighton in Great Britain, who has studied gun violence in different countries and concluded that a “culture of support” rather than focus on individualism, can deter mass killings.

“If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” he tells TIME.

That sense of social and civic responsibility is one of the reasons the Swiss have never allowed their guns to come under fire.”

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/12/20/the-swiss-difference-a-gun-culture-that-works/#ixzz2FmQKK5S4%5B/quote%5D

Sounds like you are advocating for gun control with the swiss example here. Since we do not have the sense of civic and social responsibility necessary for gun ownership without tight restriction… [insert your own conclusion here]

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter][quote=Blogstar]The argument about using AK 47’s to fight the government is ludicrous.[/quote]

Why? Do you really believe “it can’t happen here”?

No offense, but that’s incredibly naive.[/quote]

but to argue for the utility of semi-automatics in our society on that point is bordering on clinical paranoia.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu]access to lack off access to psychotherapy and meds clearly was NOT an issue in this person’s case. For god’s sake, the mother’s ex was a Director at GE living in Stamford,CT paying a $289k+/year alimony with cost of living adjustments until 2023, as well as all the medical/doctor expenses that would be incurred…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/17/nancy-lanza-peter-lanza-divorce_n_2316461.html

And clearly there were signs of “something” up mentally. Ok, autism by itself isn’t an indicator of someone going postal, but clearly wouldn’t any parent that recognizes that their child have some mental issue, at least think twice about putting guns into the kids hands? I mean, it’s like taking a kid that has epiletic seizures to drive without first completing the diagnosis to see how severe it is.. Parent clearly didn’t exercise good judgment into placing guns into the kid’s hand…
And furthermore, exercised extremely poor judgement in cultivating a gun hobby. End result is 26 people non-sensically dead…6-7 year old kids that absolutely had no chance because they probably didn’t even know what the heck was going on.

What this asshole did is worse than any terrorist, foreign or domestic. And folks probably think society failed them…It goes along with everything wrong these day….

Individuals failing to take personal responsibility for there action, and a government that doesn’t emphasis the “personal” part in responsibility… Just like how “personal” financial responsibility, or lack there of…

If there’s an epidemic, I would say it’s that. People no longer willing to take responsibility for their own actions, but rather blame everyone else for it…

“Oh no, we need to save the people that just commited these attrocious acts. They need the best medical care. We can reform them (after they killed XX+ innocent people)”

…I’d say fvck them.. Let them fry. Let God sort it out. My feelings now are exactly how I would feel if I was the parent of one of the 26 victims of this senseless act.[/quote]

By no means was I trying to imply there was no fault involving the mother or the murderer. These two were ultimately fully responsible. I don’t think society failed him at all.

I do believe that when we have these events over and over, we have to look at the larger environment that is creating these monsters.

I stand by my assessment of the recipe for creation of these monsters. Bottom line, there has always been crazies throughout the ages, but what makes our crazies into monsters with means to put an average of 10 bullets in each little kid within matter of minutes? Such is the question.

Just because one has coverage to psychiatry doesn’t mean it was utilized. Of course it was the mom and the murderer’s responsibility to seek care, but why didn’t they seek the care? That question needs to be addressed. What about role of violent video games and movies? Again, the brain of a normal person may not be susceptible, but what about the autistic or asperger brain? Then there’s the weapon of choice. What is the benefit to our society of the assault weapons? What’s the risk?

These questions do not absolve the murderer and his mom any responsibility, but these questions do at least get us down the road to stopping the epidemic.

[ocrenter]

[quote=flu]I think folks, you’re missing the point. Doesn’t matter what type of gun was used. The point is, the wrong person had access to it….And there’s no amount of legislation that’s going to prevent that from happening.

What the mother was thinking is beyond me…

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/16/us/connecticut-nancy-lanza-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Warning signs that the kid was in the process of being a social misfit already shown. I don’t know, but seems like the mother was either in denial that her son had a problem or that she so out of touch with keeping a bunch of guns in the house with a home-schooled pseudo-sociopath would pose a danger to society….On top of that, she ok’ed her son’s gun hobby????

Um, sorry I hate people who say “society failed this person” or some crap like that. Society didn’t fail… That mother failed…first as a responsible parent and second as a responsible citizen and third as general common-sense human being. And now 26 people are dead because of her.She might as well pulled the trigger herself, because she sure as hell enabled her psuedo-psycho son to do it. And surprising, some people will probably try to argue that it’s not her mother’s fault at all….She fvcked up..Bigtime.

I guess we’ll just have to put up with it…Because no amount of legislation/laws/rules will regulate stupidity, unless we’re talking about a full complete ban (which I’m not particular fond of myself)….[/quote]

We ultimately have the perfect storm in play:
–limited mental health access and continued social stigma
–distrust of doctors and medications
–proliferation of violent and graphic and increasingly realistic video games and movies
–increased firepower at reduced cost and increased firearm availability

Essentially, a mentally disturbed individual has easier access to guns and ammo than psychotherapy and meds.

[ocrenter]

[quote=CA renter]Good posts, ucodegen.

Think I’ve told this story before, but my mom and most of her friends lived through WWII in Europe. They were telling stories one day about how parents would dig holes in the forests and hide their kids in these holes overnight to protect them from the soldiers (from all sides, BTW) who would come through the towns, often drunk, and rape the women and children.

When, as a young and naive person, I asked why the people didn’t do anything to stop them, they laughed and said:

“With what? They took our guns away before these things happened, and we willingly gave them away, because they told us it was for our own protection. They said that guns were dangerous in criminals’ hands, so we turned them in.”

Never say, “it can’t happen here,” because that’s exactly what they thought, too.

I cannot imagine what those parents felt as they had to helplessly watch their children being raped and all of their possessions being stolen by soldiers from various armies. For that reason, I fully support the rights of citizens to own guns that, in sufficient number, can fight armies. This is why there is such powerful opposition to the banning of “semi-automatic” guns and gun registration (which was used in those days to locate the people who owned guns). These people are not “crackpots” in most cases. They just understand history and how it tends to repeat.[/quote]

So I got my answer on the “necessity” of assault weapons. It is so when true patriots need to rise up against the oppressive government, they have the ability to do so.

Given that same line of thought, it is then ok to have some innocent casaulties along the way to maintain that ability to launch armed resistance against future government encroachment real or imagined.

But why stop at semi-automatics, why not have the ability to keep a few tanks and maybe even go nuclear.

[ocrenter]

[quote=desmond]oc,

I see you have passion but you just do not understand guns, your questions lack sense. Not your fault, you probably have not been around guns (?). Read my post again for clarification. It really does not matter whether it is a rifle or a pistol, (the V. Tech guy used pistols) either gun can fire hi powered rounds so fast you would think it was an automatic. Small 10-15 round clips can be discharged and loaded that the shooting never stops. You are probably thinking about the Bolt-Action gun that requires repeated motions to shoot one bullet, they still make those for target shooting and hunting but the popularity for the Military type gun has skyrocketed. Banning certain guns will do nothing, there are just to many other type of guns with the same shooting power.[/quote]

I think you missed my point. Again, why do we need semi-automatics readily available at your friendly neighborhood sporting goods store? if you dont want to answer that simple question, you dont have to. But there’s no need to go down the patronizing route and start teaching Guns 101.

[ocrenter]

[quote=meadandale][quote=enron_by_the_sea][quote=no_such_reality]

How’s that war on drugs been working out for the last thirty years?[/quote]

???

Looks like some lame attempt to steer the discussion somewhere else because you don’t like to hear bad things about NRA but unfortunately can not say anything positive in support of NRA either. Hoping that things will quiet down after a few days?[/quote]

The point, which is a valid one, is that making something illegal and hard to get doesn’t eliminate it from society, which seems to be the utopian goal here.

In fact, it will almost certainly cause an underground market to emerge and make criminals of many law abiding citizens. Hell, there already is a black market in guns for criminals. It will become quite a bit larger when that’s the only way to get a gun in the US.[/quote]

Yes, but right now you can just go down to Sears and Big 5 and get a semi-automatic rifle. Big 5 has two on sale, one for $250 and the other for $500. And who knows how many rounds of ammo you can get on-line.

Please explain to me why we need to have semi-automatics available for less than $500 at your local sporting goods store?

[ocrenter]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]SK: I agree that pistols only would likely have reduced the number of casualties. The Bushmaster is a semi-auto version of the M-16/M-4 and generally feeds from a 30rd magazine. We were taught to fire semi-auto, for accuracy and control, and you can put a lot of .223 out, even in semi-auto. It’s a nasty round, no doubt about it and designed for the single purpose of creating an inoperable wound channel.

That said, I remain torn on gun control for assault rifles. I recently attended an Active Shooter scenario in downtown San Francisco. The SFPD SWAT team had fully auto M-4s, concussion grenades and looked virtually indistinguishable from a full-blown military unit. One of them joked about “shock and awe” following their breaching maneuver and I remembered thinking that we live in a different world now and that I mistrust my government now more than ever.

Perhaps this sounds overly paranoid to you, but the thought of voluntarily disarming myself in the face of ever-increasing government intrusion and control just doesn’t seem like a good idea.[/quote]

To me, I simply can not envision any reason for the possession of semi-automatics other than to join the militia or something like that.

[Author]

Posts