HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » gejohnston » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

gejohnston

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Hometown: Rock Springs, Wyoming
Current location: Sweetwater County, Wyoming & Citrus County, Florida
Member since: Mon Aug 7, 2006, 12:19 AM
Number of posts: 16,531

Journal Archives

Mystery of the Horse Creek Girl

good idea or bad?

is "out of sight out of mind" as good as a bio-metric safe? Would you buy one?

less than lethal alternative

this pepper spray device, have anyone seen or used it?
http://www.acecodefense.com/

UW study upends understanding of prehistoric man


There is a long-held belief that agriculture changed everything for human beings. Agriculture meant a stable food supply, surpluses, an ability to thrive despite natural environmental changes.

But a new study, published in December in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, challenges the idea that the start of agriculture 10,000 to 12,000 years ago is responsible for boosting the human population growth rate. Radiocarbon dating analysis shows that prehistoric hunter-gatherer human populations in what is now Wyoming and Colorado grew at the same rate as farming societies in Europe.

“It’s pretty mind blowing,” said Erick Robinson, a University of Wyoming post-doctoral researcher on the project.

Bob Kelly, professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming, was looking at the relationship between prehistoric population sizes and climate change, using radiocarbon dating on charcoal found in prehistoric hearth sites. Scientists can use this data to estimate population growth rates for a given period of time. Previously, scientists studied population data over short time spans, like 500 years. Looking at population data is not new. What is new is the UW research team looked at growth rate across a large span of time instead of just 500 years.

http://www.wyofile.com/column/uw-study-upends-understanding-prehistoric-man/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklynewsletter

Westerners of all stripes to Bundy

Go home, or jail, which ever works.
http://wyomingpublicmedia.org/post/note-militia-occupiers-westerners-actually-prefer-feds-run-public-lands

how to talk productively on guns

Interesting read. Basically, it boils down to culture war.
https://popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/

A refreshing take from USA Today of all places

It mixes gun control and over incarceration in one.
Police are horrible, racist monsters who want to lock up minorities over even trivial violations of the law! And police are also the only ones who should have guns!

These two beliefs, it seems from my observations, are often held by the same people. Yet there is a conflict: If you favor strict gun control laws, laws that will punish people severely simply for possessing a gun or ammunition, then you will wind up throwing a lot more people in jail. And many of those people will be minorities.

This was the point of a talk by George Washington University law professor Robert J. Cottrol at a Georgetown Law School conference on guns and gun rights that I attended last week. As Cottrol noted, “Gun-control laws have a tendency of turning into criminals peaceable citizens whom the state has no reason to have on its radar.”

This is the part that stood out to me.
Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and — Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder.
He even used Shaneen Allen and Ray Rice as an example.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/09/glenn-reynolds-gun-control-enforcement-takes-human-toll-column/75414186/

can anyone in PA tell me

when the state banned semi automatics for hunting and why? I'm guessing it sometime ago. It is the only one who did that.
http://timesleader.com/sports/outdoors/265308/outdoors-with-tom-venesky-automatically-opposed-to-semi-auto-rifles-for-hunting

After reading what Jim Zumbo actually said, I think he got a bad rap. He said using ARs and AKs for hunting, not ownership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Zumbo#.22.27Terrorist.27_rifles.22_blog_entry

how to apply for a shotgun license in the UK

What I found most interesting was the age requirement, or lack of.

can anyone verify this?

A friend of mine sent me this link. Since I don't have any contacts in the British government, nor am I an expert on their crime reporting statistics. In fact, I'm not even an Anglophile beyond enjoying working with the RAF a few times.

If this is true, think of the ramifications for discussing gun control in general. How are each country reporting their murder rates and are they comparable to how the US does it?
Take for example, this tidbit.
Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction.
and cites a paper written by former Met PD official Colon Greenwood on Parliament's website. It not only says that Jack the Ripper's crimes would not be included by the Home Office statistics. It also begs the question, does the increase in this chart mean "more murder" or "better police work and forensics resulting in more convictions"?



Here is the point he is making
The murder rate in the UK according to US standards is double or higher than their reported rate. It may be impossible to produce an actual apples to apples comparison number from official sources. It is not 15% of the US rate.

My question is, when we make these international comparisons with numbers from Wikipedia, is either side making "apples and apples" comparisons?
the link
http://rboatright.blogspot.com/2013/03/comparing-england-or-uk-murder-rates.html
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »