HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Nuclear Unicorn » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

Nuclear Unicorn

Profile Information

Member since: Wed Sep 16, 2009, 07:33 PM
Number of posts: 19,497

Journal Archives

From the other group: Consistent link between violent crime and concealed-carry gun permits

Consistent link between violent crime and concealed-carry gun permits

The first study to find a significant relationship between firearm crime and subsequent applications for, and issuance of, concealed-carry gun permits has been published in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence.

The paper, “Firearm Violence and Effects on Concealed Gun Carrying: Large Debate and Small Effects,” found there is a consistent link between violent crime — especially crimes that involve guns — and an increase in the number of people issued carry permits over two time periods examined in the study, said Jeremy Carter, an assistant professor in the School of Public and Environmental Affairs at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis.

While the link is consistent and robust, Carter said the magnitude of this association is relatively low.

“It seems the level of debate surrounding violence and concealed carrying far outweighs any observed effects,” Carter and his co-author, Michael Binder, an assistant professor at the University of North Florida, conclude. “We acknowledge that other factors are just as — if not more — important and highlight the need for more refined research to parse out any plausible relationships.”

“From a theoretical perspective, the finding of firearm crime as a predictor of concealed carrying is the first such demonstrable relationship and provides evidence that should solicit further investigation,” the study says.


This seems to be a chicken-or-egg issue.

Is crime up because CC permits are up or are CC permits up because people want protection from criminals? It seems to me one good way of isolating that answer would be to see what percentage of CC permit holders are being arrested for these crimes.

Sadly, for a blog named "scienceblog" that question is not asked. We're simply treated to a correlation-equals-causation anti-scientific post with no hyperlink to the original study being cited.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Wed Mar 2, 2016, 11:22 AM (11 replies)

Clinton supporters no longer have the right to complain about refusals to vote for Hillary

I have served on numerous juries where a Sanders supporter has stated they refuse to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. The alert comment is always something along the lines of, "This is DEMOCRATIC Underground. Saying you won't vote for the DEMOCRATIC candidate is a violation of the TOS."

But then we get the incessant barrage of posts making Sanders supporters out to be racists. Never mind Sanders' decades long support for civil rights going back all the way before it was cool, Sanders has been slapped with everything short of outright being called a Klansman.

And his supporters are also being insulted. Any effort to remind others of Sanders' work for civil rights is waved away and the supporters are told they are insulting African Americans -- as if actual racists would count work in the civil rights movement as a point of pride. Now they're being told they are reducing African Americans to less than a complete person.

Wow. Just effing -- wow.

And that claim is getting dozens of Recs.

You want to see a real racist? Look no further than David Duke. Who has he thrown his lot in with? Which candidate makes him nod his head approvingly.

Hint: It rhymes with "Donald Trump"

We on DU note this fact and count it as yet one more reason as to why Trump is not qualified to be president. Surely, someone who draws the accolades of someone as unsavory as David Duke cannot possibly represent anything except baser motivations.

But Sanders supporters -- the ones being accused of reducing African Americans to lesser persons kinda like how David Duke does -- are being told they need to line up behind Hillary.

How about this Clinton supporters: If you're so absolutely certain that Sanders supporters are as racist as you claim then you should be demanding they do not support your candidate. The next time a Sanders supporter says they won't vote for Clinton instead of alerting you should show some integrity and just say, "Thank you" unless you would also welcome the David Duke bloc.

I dare you. I double-dog dare you.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Wed Mar 2, 2016, 08:29 AM (9 replies)

Hillary Clinton 2016: DC Lobbyists Set To Raise Cash For Hillary Victory Fund

Hillary Clinton 2016: DC Lobbyists Set To Raise Cash For Hillary Victory Fund

By Andrew Perez @AndrewPerezDC AND David Sirota @davidsirota On 02/29/16 AT 6:32 PM

The Democratic National Committee’s recent move to end its ban on contributions from federal lobbyists was widely seen as a boost to Hillary Clinton’s campaign, which has ties to the Washington lobbying community. Clinton already appears to be taking advantage of the shift.

On Mar. 21, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and a handful of lobbying titans are scheduled to host a fundraiser for the Hillary Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account for the Clinton campaign, the DNC and 32 state parties. According to an invitation obtained by the Sunlight Foundation, Podesta’s co-hosts include Steve Elmendorf, Jeff Forbes and Susan Brophy — all of whom were government officials before becoming lobbyists at top D.C. firms. The event with Podesta — whose brother is a corporate lobbyist and fundraising bundler for Clinton — follows a recent fundraising blitz by Clinton in which her campaign raised money from financial, energy and other industries that expect to have business before the next president.


One of the corporations they will be fund-raising with is Valeant Pharmaceuticals --

The Hillary Victory Fund event also lists Ann Castagnetti as a co-host of the event next month. Her husband, David, is a co-founder of Mehlman Castagnetti, where he’s represented clients like Walmart. Clinton was once a Walmart board member, and the company’s heir donated $353,000 to the Hillary Victory Fund. Castagnetti lobbied lawmakers for Valeant Pharmaceuticals, which disclosed Monday it’s being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Clinton even calls-out Valeant in a campaign ad for price gouging.

Why would a company raise money for a candidate that is supposedly going to take them to task for profiteering unless the candidate was cheaper than a federal fine. For $350k instead of potentially tens of millions of dollars it's a bargain at twice the price.

And scathing campaign ad isn't going to bother them. Nobody will remember the ad once it stops playing and it's not like a patient in need of lifesaving medications is going to rebuff them saying, "I remember that company from Hillary's ad. I don't want to line their pockets!"
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Tue Mar 1, 2016, 07:48 PM (2 replies)

The ACA and the General Election

Since single payer -- to quote one "Democratic" candidate -- will, "never, ever happen" what will become of the ACA?

So far 36 states declined to set-up exchanges whatsoever. Of the remaining states that did make an effort half of those exchanges have either closed or are going on life support (assuming they can afford the premiums and deductibles). What's more, the employer mandate has been waived since the law's inception.

Sadly, the GOP has not suffered in the least for their opposition to the law. Sure, they may not have been able to repeal it but that's because Obama obviously refuses to sign the bill killing his quasi-eponymous achievement.

  • What will be the party's platform regarding the outgoing President's healthcare law?

  • Will the waiver of the employer mandate be lifted?

  • What will be done to assist struggling states?

  • What about citizens that refuse/neglect to enroll and how will that issue be characterized during the election?
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:27 PM (1 replies)

The one consistent talking point among Hillary boosters: History

If you bring up the fact she was a "Goldwater girl," sat on the board of directors of Wal-Mart and never met a war she didn't like you will be told, "History doesn't matter!"

If you bring-up the fact that Sanders has consistently spoken-up for workers, the environment, civil rights and anti-imperialism you will be told, "History doesn't matter!"
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Thu Feb 25, 2016, 10:20 AM (29 replies)

Gun control never seems to work-out well for minorities and women. Why is that?

I saw this in GD and, admittedly, it is from 2008; but the italicized excerpt at the end leapt-out at me --

Plainsclothes cops dont recognize NYPDs highest ranking black officer. Order him out of car at gunpoint


Chief Douglas Zeigler, 60, head of the Community Affairs Bureau, was in his NYPD-issued vehicle near a fire hydrant when two plainclothes cops approached on May 2, sources said.

One officer walked up on each side of the SUV at 57th Ave. and Xenia St. in Corona about 7 p.m. and told the driver to roll down the heavily tinted windows, sources said.

What happened next is in dispute.

In his briefing to Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly, Zeigler said the two cops, who are white, had no legitimate reason to approach his SUV, ranking sources said.

After they ordered him to get out, one officer did not believe the NYPD identification Zeigler gave him.

The cops gave a different account:

When one officer spotted Zeigler's service weapon through the rolled-down window, he yelled "Gun!" according to sources who have spoken with the officers.

Both cops raised their weapons and ordered the driver out of the car, sources said.

The police chief was open carrying, as was his legal right but the assumption of the other two officers was that he was a menace.

Tamir Rice was shot and killed while playing with a toy gun.

John Crawford was shot and killed in a Wal-Mart because somebody reported a man holding a gun.

Clarence Daniels was lawfully carrying concealed when he was assaulted.

Those who spread the gunz = fear mantra are getting innocent people hurt and those people are predominantly people of color.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Tue Feb 23, 2016, 08:55 AM (31 replies)

We're told open carry is wrong because it's allegedly a form of passive intimidation

But then we're told -- generally by the same crowd -- that certain limitations on guns are acceptable namely a prohibition on sawed-off shotguns because (get this) they can be easily concealed.

It seems disingenuous to me that gun owners are supposed to be subject to mutually excluding rules of conduct. It has every appearance of the Controllers seeking to avoid the accusation of their attempting to impose a ban by creating a de facto ban by way of creating so many constraints as to make lawful possession impossible.

Perhaps the Controllers -- if this is not the case -- would do a service to their cause if they were sort out amongst themselves what is the proper mode for carrying a weapon before they presume to reenter the debate at large.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Thu Feb 18, 2016, 07:05 PM (94 replies)

2006: FEDS GAVE DONALD A QUICK BUNDLE. He's among titans who got 9-11 funds set for small biz

FEDS GAVE DONALD A QUICK BUNDLE. He's among titans who got 9-11 funds set for small biz

Donald Trump, the Rockefeller Group and Ford Models were among the tycoons and huge corporations that received federal 9/11 recovery grants earmarked by Congress for small businesses, a Daily News investigation has found. Other unlikely recipients include subsidiaries of corporate giants Dell Inc., Morgan Stanley, The AXA Group and the Bank of China, records show. Even World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein's company qualified for some small-business recovery aid. The firms were allowed to collect small-business grants because the state agency that dished out the free money, the Empire State Development Corp., ignored the federal definition of a small business and adopted a much looser standard. The ESDC used employee counts - setting the maximum for its $556 million Business Recovery Grant program at 500 workers - to determine whether applicants were small businesses. Federal law requires that the size category of the types of businesses most common in lower Manhattan - finance, insurance, real estate and law firms - be determined based on annual revenue. Only the wholesale, manufacturing and mining sectors - obviously uncommon downtown - are measured by number of employees. Also, in totaling the number of employees, the ESDC didn't require applicants to include employees of subsidiaries and other affiliated businesses. Federal regulations require that linked companies are included in determining whether a business is small. The News found dozens of examples of large firms slipping through as small ones. One couldn't tell from ESDC records, for example, that "40 Wall Street LLC" is owned by Trump. The Donald bills himself as the "largest real estate developer in New York," Last week, Trump sued a New York Times reporter for concluding in a book that the host of "The Apprentice" isn't a billionaire. But the ESDC's rules transformed Trump into a small-business man. His company collected a $150,000 grant for losses at 40 Wall St. The grant application describes the corporation through which Trump owns that building as having 28 employees and $26.

8 million in annual revenues. That passed the ESDC's small business test of less than 500 employees. But the revenue amount would put the single Trump property over the federal definition of a small business - which is $6 million annually for lessors of nonresidential buildings. A Trump spokeswoman did not respond to a call and e-mail message seeking comment. In his 2004 book "Trump: How to Get Rich," the real estate mogul writes that he bought the building in 1995 for $1 million, calling it "one of the best deals I ever made.

" "I make a great deal of money from 40 Wall St.," Trump writes. "Aside from owning the most beautiful building in lower Manhattan, I have the added attraction of owning a particularly lucrative one.


#$%@ing despicable, exploiting, opportunistic huckster.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:12 PM (2 replies)

"The GOP will savagely attack Sanders" seems to be code-speak for

"Hillary is acceptable to the GOP"

And after her real record of wars, corporatism and self-serving triangulation -- I BELIEVE THEM!

If, however, they wish to revise their statement to allow that the GOP would also savagely oppose Hillary what then is left to make me abandon a candidate who is not saddled with wars, corporatism and self-serving triangulation?

Edited to add -- Considering the failed attempts to staunch Sanders' groundswell with claims he never was a civil rights activist, only appeals to whites, universal healthcare is unobtainable, taxes will be too high coming from within the Democratic party itself why is there any reason to believe the GOP will be able to stop him with, "Because SOCIALISM!"?
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 07:39 AM (242 replies)

Once Every 16 Hours, An American Woman Is Fatally Shot by a Current or Former Romantic Partner

This was posted over at the other group --

Once Every 16 Hours, An American Woman Is Fatally Shot by a Current or Former Romantic Partner

On Thursday, January 28, Tania Adams, a 41-year-old mother of three, was gunned down by her estranged husband in the clubhouse of a planned community she worked at in Homestead, Florida. He then wounded one of her co-workers before fatally shooting himself. According to a fundraising drive set up to help pay for her funeral expenses, Adams had left the man, whose name was not released, around Christmas. By then he’d allegedly threatened her life “numerous times.”

The next evening, 44-year-old Cheryl Snyder Tremmel was shot several times in Hemitage, Pennsylvania while attempting to move out on her husband. As she lay dying of her wounds, Edward Tremmel, texted her father, “I’m sorry that it has to end this way,” then shot himself in the head.
Three days after Ashley Jones was murdered by a former partner in Newark, NeShante Alesha Davis, a 26-year-old elementary school teacher, was found shot to death in a parking lot outside of her Fort Washington, Maryland home. She had been heard arguing with Daron Boswell-Johnson, the 25-year-old father of her toddler, over a $600-a-month child support petition. Two-year-old Chloe was found in her car seat, dead of a gunshot wound. Boswell-Johnson has confessed to the murders.


My first thought was, "Where are the cops?" Long before these heinous acts turned to murder there was a history of intimate partner violence. In fact, nearly 2 million women and men suffer from intimate partner violence. Maybe I'm just being too damned naïve but I can't help but think if abusers were not free to abuse then 2 million people would be safer and the above would be a non-issue.

The thing of it is: Every one of these murders is a failure (or in some instances, refusal) of the state to act to protect. Moreover, the state is not obligated to act even if a Restraining Order has been issued.

Yet, in spite of this fact, those who would impose nuisance fees and stalling regulations on gun owners are imposing them on the victims of these crimes.

The police cannot, will not and do not have to protect anyone. Therefore, the first, last and best line of defense is the individual.

Consider that women killed by intimate partners will be murdered by gun 55% of the time, that means there is another 45% who will be murdered by a means other than a gun. Some people need to start acting as if that other 45% matter -- and the other 2 million non-murdered victims as well.


But then what struck me was the attending commentary. I can only assume the reason this was posted at the other group was to protect it from comment.

Some states prohibit domestic abusers from possessing guns, some don't. Some states only prohibit abusers from buying guns, not possessing them. Some states prohibit the possession of guns by abusers on a temporary restraining order, others wait until a judge hears the case and adjudicates the order to permanent status (usually two weeks). Almost no states have a mechanism of determining who owns guns and how many. Almost no states have a mechanism of removing guns from the possession of even convicted abusers. Those that do seldom enforce that part of the law. When guns are seized from a domestic abuser it's a simple matter to buy one on the open private market.

I'm not sure why the poster insists on claiming, "Some states...some states...some states" when all states are governed by the Lautenberg Amendment --

The act bans shipment, transport, ownership and use of guns or ammunition by individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, or who are under a restraining (protection) order for domestic abuse that falls within the criteria set by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8). The act also makes it unlawful to knowingly sell or give a firearm or ammunition to such persons.


But I think the poster gives away the game when he writes, "Almost no states have a mechanism of determining who owns guns and how many."

I've seen quite a few intimate partner violence stats in my admittedly meager number of years (more than I wish I had) but I have never seen any stats tied to the number of guns owned. In fact, the number of guns owned appears to be an issue only to the poster.

At this point the whole thing looks like one massive exploitation of victims who need genuine protection, not posturing on their already bruised backs.

Then the poster signs-off with this --

This is a serious issue for women and the men who love them. Pay attention, people.

Yeah, if only.
Posted by Nuclear Unicorn | Tue Feb 16, 2016, 06:24 AM (4 replies)
Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »