Comments by Christopher Davis

201. Anti-Darwinists turned away by Israeli academia

Comment #212308 by Christopher Davis on July 17, 2008 at 2:15 am

"I realize it is much more fun to hate Muslims if you view them all as fundamentalists, but there are secularied Muslims too."---esuther

It's not fun, or productive, to hate anyone. As for these secularized muslims you refer to, they represent a miniscule minority.

202. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212304 by Christopher Davis on July 17, 2008 at 2:02 am

"And carrying a concealed weapon makes a woman over 5x less likely to be a violent crime victim"---Broshieq

I'm not buying the validity of that stat. Furthermore, even if it is true it doesn't explain much.

Are you claiming that there are legions of women who have fought off an attack with their personal weapon?

I've got a feeling that even if women who carry concealed firearms do get attacked less, it has more to do with their deameanor and bearing than it does with the fact that they are carrying a weapon that an attacker can't see.

203. Anti-Darwinists turned away by Israeli academia

Comment #212241 by Christopher Davis on July 16, 2008 at 10:01 pm

I second Cartomancer's above comment (#12).

Also, I call bullshit on this "interfaith initiative" the only thing Muslim and Christian "religious scholars" have in common is their eagerness to denounce evolution.

Furthermore, the idea that the University's decision not to host a farce is somehow reinforcing the image of Islam as a radical religion is bunk. Islam's image a a radical religion is reinforced everytime on of these dirt-worshipping, woman-hating, virgin seekers blows something up and people die.

Oh but wait! These "scholars" are AGAINST terrorism!

How fucking humane of them.

What they fail to mention is that it isn't terrorism if only infidels die...it's Allah's will.

204. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212233 by Christopher Davis on July 16, 2008 at 9:37 pm

Bonzai,

I agree with you...to a point. Definitely guns make killing easier, in several ways. Lt. Col David Grossman (he also has a PhD in psychology) has written a great book on this called "On Killing".

However, I think you are over-estimating how much stand-off distance is typical (and reasonable) when killing with your average handgun. I also think you over-estimate how much effort is really required in killing someone with a knife, bat, etc. OJ Simpson killed two healthy adults, one of them a young, six-foot male with, judging by the physical evidence at the crime scene, very little effort, using a knife.

Also, unless I'm mistaken (don't get to see the news much here in Afghanistan) a man was just arrested in Wisconsin(?) for killing 8 people, several of which he beat to death.

Finally, although it may be counter-intuitive, casualty counts resulting from war were much higher BEFORE the invention of firearms than they have been since.

205. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212227 by Christopher Davis on July 16, 2008 at 9:16 pm

I think that the constant use of the term "Darwinism" by the religious right works because it makes sense to the type of mind that can accept the Bible as the inerrant word of God.
For people like that, dogma is a way of life. Science is telling them that their dogma is flawed. So they want to see our dogma.

I've come to believe that thinking is a laborious endeavour for about 85% of the human race. Thinking is hard, they don't want to do it and can't imagine anybody that would. Therefore anyone who "believes in evolution" must be getting those beliefs from somewhere?

Along comes people like Ann Coulter (who knows exactly how full of shit she is) claiming that Darwin is our prophet and "Origin" is our inerrant text...WHAM! no thinking required. All evolutionary science has just been reduced to the level of something people "choose to believe".

It's actually a brilliant strategy.

206. 'Condoms won't change HIV rates'

Comment #212221 by Christopher Davis on July 16, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Well that's one way of representing the Catholic Church's take on condom use...of course I'd prefer if they represented their position HONESTLY! Such as...

We don't want you to have condoms, because that would allow you to have sex outside of marriage without getting AIDS. Since AIDS is the punishment that my all-loving, all-forgiving, sky-daddy has proscribed for the awful sin of fornication, we don't want you thwarting our all-powerful father's divine will with a latex sheath.

There, I think that's better.

edit: I have no idea why this post is in bold.

207. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212213 by Christopher Davis on July 16, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Laurie Fraser,

You took offense at Al referring to people who think an outright ban on firearms is the solution to the high rate of violent crimes/deaths in the U.S. as the "insane-left".

What you seem to fail to realize, is that classifying everyone who doesn't think that banning all firearms is the solution as a "gun-lover" is equally offensive.

208. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212210 by Christopher Davis on July 16, 2008 at 8:15 pm

"Handguns, along with their ability to be easily hidden and casually used on a whim trivialize life and death in a way that few other weapons do"---Steve Zara

Steve, I have to disagree. Weapons don't trivialize life, people do. When someone uses violent means be it knife, bat, brick, gun (or Taser even) to take something from a person with no regard for that person's life, they are placing their needs above their victim's and are thereby trivializing that person's life.

In essence, they are going to take what they want and they don't give a damn whether you live or die.

209. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212206 by Christopher Davis on July 16, 2008 at 8:05 pm

"I live in a one bedroom flat, if some idiot wonders in looking to nick stuff I am going to thwack him with my cricket bat, simple as that. I would be too worried if I had a gun, if I shot him, I might end up killing him and I personally could not do that."---Phil1978

I've never held a cricket bat, but if it's anything like a baseball bat then your chance of killing your assailant is probably about 50/50 if you take a good swing and whack him in the melon. If you take a bat to an intruder with anything less than extreme malice, you are just as likely to piss the guy off as disable him.

Like I posted above, I respect your concern for the life a fellow human being, but your best bet in a situation like you describe is a pump-shotgun loaded with small-game shot. You have a better chance of stopping your assailant with about the same chance of killing (maybe less).

210. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212194 by Christopher Davis on July 16, 2008 at 7:39 pm

"Actually most people who are victims of gun violence are other criminals involved in illicit drug deals or other nefarious activities. Allow me to tell you what the Oakland DA calls a situation where one thug shoots another:"---Al-Rawandi

You're preaching to the choir Al. I was a police officer for a short while. So I'm familiar with most of the stats.

I also agree that fear is a big motivator in a lot of people's stance on this issue. Unfortunately, what I've been trying to explain (and obviously doing a poor job of) is that most violent criminals don't need a gun to hurt or even kill you. Criminals almost always prey on those who are weaker...there are thousands of men in prison who could beat the average citizen to death with their bare hands.

However, I also believe that there are some people who oppose guns on the grounds that they find the idea of killing another human being abhorrent...even in self-defense. Honestly, I can't understand that mindset, but I can respect it, and I can respect their concern regarding gun related deaths caused by people who never should have had a firearm in the first place.

I'm also willing to concede that deaths due to crimes of passion (even though I realize that these deaths make up only a small portion of gun related deaths)would most likely decrease if guns were not so readily available in our society.

However, all in all I'm with you. Thinking that a total ban on firearms will solve the U.S.'s gun problems is simplistic. What is needed is better enforcement of existing laws (and maybe the introduction of a few more), and a change in how U.S. culture views and portrays guns.

211. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211323 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 6:52 pm

Steve,

You make a good point about the "casual power" that firearms imbue. This dovetails well with the argument that fewer firearms in the hands of average citizens would result in fewer crimes of passion resulting in fatalities.

I agree with this argument.

However, I'd like to point out that most men have "casual power" over most women through sheer physical size. In fact, most violent criminals don't need a gun to be successful in violating their victims rights.

In many cases victims of "crimes of passion" are active (and sometimes willing) participants in the activities that cause their death. There is a chain of causal events that leads to their demise with several points where they could have made a better decision.

The victim(s) of home invasions, back alley assaults, and crazed gunman violence are almost always hapless pawns.

212. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #211314 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 6:34 pm

"I never said it was their only purpose, I instead stressed that the majority of people that were arguing on here stressed owning guns for that purpose"---Mitchell Gilks in response to Al-Rawandi calling him on his claim that the only purpose of a gun is to kill

Mitchell,

I'm not sure if you were referring to me (although I'm the one who posted the most against outlawing firearms yesterday), but if it was then you are not being honest.

My two main reasons for opposing a gun ban were and are closely related...

1) I don't think that outlawing firearms would reduce crime committed by violent predators

2) And I know that it would take the means of protecting oneself and innocent others out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

Now before you or someone else points out that reason #2 often results in someone being killed by a gun, I hasten to add that causing an attackers death is not the purpose in protecting yourself or someone else with a firearm. The purpose of using a firearm is to stop the agressor's actions by shooting him. In the words of Ivan Drago, "If he dies, he dies".

This might sound callous, but I made it clear yesterday that I have no empathy and little sympathy for people who use violence (gun or otherwise) to violate the rights of others.

I also made it clear that I don't think most Americans are qualified to carry a concealed firearm, and that for home protection, a shot-gun is the best choice.

Nothing I said yesterday advocated for more handguns on the street.

Nothing I said yesterday could reasonably be construed to indicate a desire to kill people.

213. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210820 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 5:45 am

Bonzai,
The NRA has its own agenda, and it has more to do with money than protecting people's rights.

However, don't be too hard on Broshiesq. I haven't checked his numbers, but the sources he cites are legit. This issue brings strong emotions to the forefront.

I try not to rationalize my position too much, I simply can't abide a solution that takes away the ability of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves and their fellow citizens from criminal predators.

214. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210806 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 5:06 am

Steve,

True. But I also wouldn't want to be the one who failed to stop the victimization of an innocent.

215. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210804 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 5:01 am

My internet is trying to take a shit on me. I noticed one of my posts got duplicated...sorry all.

Mitchell,

I won't argue that gun violence wouldn't go down if ownership of personal firearms were outlawed (although I can imagine a few counter-intuitive scenarios where this might not be the case, at least in some area of the U.S.). I just don't think it would put much of a dent in violence...especially violence committed by criminal predators.

Furthermore, I think most of the problems the U.S. has regarding guns could be dealt with through stricter enforcement of existing laws, the development of a few more restrictions, and education. Also we need to figure out a way to address our culture's fascination with firearms...and on this one I'm at a loss.

216. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210784 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 4:17 am

decius,

Apology accepted. As for how I felt when I was robbed...

I was 19 and I was scared, but I was ready to fight for my money...until I saw the gun, then I was terrified. After it was over, I felt violated. It was weeks before I felt safe just walking to my vehicle.

In recalling this, I can think of nothing that I would have liked better than for someone, officer of the law or private citizen, to have gunned those fuckers down and saved me from that experience. If that sounds uncivilized, so be it.

I stand by my comments that not all life is sacred. Those who rape, rob (not burgle), and molest cause more human suffering than their shitty existence justifies.

Gun violence is a serious problem in the U.S. but I simply don't beleive that outlawing guns is the answer. Violent people are going to inflict violence on those they deem weaker than themselves, gun or no gun.

Also, distinctions must be made between owning a gun and carrying a conceaqled handgun in public. The litmus test for the latter should be way more stringent.

217. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210781 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 4:13 am

218. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210754 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 3:44 am

"If you prepare yourself psychologically with this sort of dynamics, which are the dynamics of fear and survival (and not of heroism and machismo), you will be far better off than if you run these idiotic wank-flicks in your adolescent mind."---decius

Now I know you didn't bother to read my earlier comments. I've got 12 years in the military (five active)and 3 years in law enforcement. I'm a long way from adolescence, and I don't sit around fantasizing about kicking people's asses.

Steve,
Yeah I can see how what I say might be a little harsh, but I'm working from a law enforcement perspective. What I'm describing is standard escalation of force. You are obligated to protect yourself and innocents. If you try less-than-lethal and an innocent dies, you failed.

If you, or someone else, are being attacked by a man with a knife and you go for your Taser and miss (both electrodes must make good contact) you may not get a chance to move to the next level.

219. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210747 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 3:31 am

"Anecdotal as this may be, the biggest weapon in one's arsenal is one's own brains..."---decius

Absolutely true. As Bonzai argued earlier, having a gun concealed on your person is almost always useless when you are being robbed by an armed assailant and in many instances can be detrimental to your survival.

Of course I don't know why I'm agreeing with you decius, since I'm "clueless".

I guess it is because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you only skimmed my posts, and are going on the assumption that since I am not for the outright outlawing of firearms, I must be a lifetime member of the NRA who sits amidst his personal arsenal jerking off to "Guns & Ammo" magazine. I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth.

In addition to what I pull out of my "fervid imagination", I have some real life experiences (including being the victim of a robbery where the fact that one of my two assailants had a gun probably saved me a severe ass-beating or worse) that lead me to believe that the world is an ugly place where the use of a gun is sometimes necessary.

220. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210738 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 3:13 am

Steve,
Maybe I didn't phrase that right. If I could stop someone from hurting me or someone else using less-than-lethal means then I would absolutely do so...in fact, it is my duty to subdue the guy with as little force as possible.

What I meant by not feeling obligated not to shoot him is...if in the heat of the moment, I decided that the best way to stop the guy was to shoot him, I'd do so. I wouldn't feel obligated to attempt the use of the less-than-lethal weapon if, in my judgment, it wouldn't work.

Hopefully that clears it up.

221. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210728 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 3:00 am

Mitchell,

I said Bonzai's example was good...but it's his example, not yours.

Don't call me a lunatic just because I'm forcing you to think.

Also, since you seem to be fond of prepared arguments, here's a few more canned phrases...

"If it saves a single life!"

"He's just a child!"

"Every human life is precious!"

Feel free to work those in where you can.

222. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210708 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 2:13 am

Mitchell,

Sorry I disgust you. Fortunately, you are not the person who decides whether or not I deserve to be in a position of public trust. Who would you trust with a firearm? Someone who wouldn't use it?

For the most part, I'm done with you. However, I can't let your inability to read and tendency to jump to conclusions misconstrue what I actually said.

I don't advocate shooting people for things they might do...I don't even advocate shooting car thieves. My point was that your trite little saying (truck < human life) ignores the realities of the situation and reduces a tragedy to a sound bite.

Like I said, I don't know the details of the situation and I doubt you do either. The only thing we know is the guy got shot committing a felony.

Despite what you may think, not every human life is priceless. Some people are shitbags. For all we know this guy was one of them. Either way, if he doesn't steal the truck, he doesn't get shot.

I may disgust you, but without people like me, people like you would live in lawless society at the mercy of characters far more barbaric than I am.

223. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210690 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 1:38 am

Brian,
Actually, I said the idea of a 44-Magnum in the hand of a sorority girl made me nervous (more accurately it scares the shit out of me). If I were tasked to stop a massacre such as the one at Va Tech, I'd select a Glock 9mm.

Mordacious,

I have the same problems with the NRA. Also, I am aware that I have made a case for the responsible ownership of firearms without proposing how we seperate the responsible people from the irresponsible people. That's because I honestly don't know.

What I do know is that if you outlaw guns, criminals will still have them. Furthermore even if you were able to do away with all firearms, violent criminals will still prey on those weaker than them.

I think the answer is to change our "gun culture". When the majority of Americans view a firearm as a mere tool, and a means of last resort
---as opposed to the root of all evil, or as something "cool"---we'll be a lot closer to a solution.

224. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210680 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 1:17 am

"I don't think a truck is ever worth a person's life."---Mitchell Gilks

What if it's fully loaded, with a custom paint-job and leather seats?

Mitchell, it's statements like this that show why you are truly naive. It wasn't a clean swap...a human life for a truck. The fucker was stealing and he got shot. Why was he stealing the truck? I can't honestly say, but if drugs were not involved I would be suprised.

Suppose this thief, drugged up or not, stole this truck and while racing away ran over an innocent child? Or more likely, suppose this thief sold the truck to a chop-shop to get more drugs? How long do you think it will be before this junkie goes so far down the shitter he hurts or kills someone for a few dollars and his next fix?

Of course, this could have been some harmless teenage prank that ended tragically. I don't know, and Mitchell, I bet you don't either. That's way statements like "I don't think a truck is ever worth a person's life" are meaningless.

Bonzai's story is a much better example of the perils of allowing just anyone to have a gun. Hopefully the guy who shot the trick-or-treater was prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

225. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210670 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 12:56 am

Brian,

No. I don't think you are mentally weak. I just think that you are so opposed to the idea of personal gun ownership that for you, even if you lived in the "free" U.S., owning a gun is a bad idea.

I feel this way about most people. I've already admitted arrogance, so I'll just let it rip...I figure less than 5% of the general population in the U.S. can be trusted to carry a firearm in public. I think I'm one of them. This is not necessarily by choice.

However, when it comes to protecting your home, I think everyone should have the right to own a firearm. That being said, a handgun is a shitty choice for home protection. A shotgun is much better.

A gun in every citizen's hand is definitely not the answer, but neither is the outlawing of private gun ownership.

226. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210666 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 12:40 am

Mitchell,

Now you are just being silly. I said I don't like guns, I meant it. Saying that I have a desire to own guns just proves that you can't envision someone having an emotionally detached opinion regarding this subject.

I no more "desire" to own a gun than I "desire to own a shovel".

What I desire, is a society where good, law-abiding people don't have to live at the mercy of those who would impose their will upon them.

As for caring about everybody...please do me a favor and climb off your cross.

227. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210659 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 12:26 am

Bonzai,

Not sure how I missed comment #157, but you voice many, if not all, the reasons I am opposed to your average college student having a gun in class...but that doesn't mean that I agree that schools should be "gun-free" zones.

Admittedly, I am not your average college student (or even your average citizen) but I am not rare either.

Honestly, if I had been in one of the classrooms at Va Tech, a firearm probably wouldn't have increased my personal chances of survival much at all, but it's very possible that I could have saved some of my fellow students.

There should be a very high standard to meet before being allowed to carry a concealed firearm (a standard that is unlikely to be met by a college frat-boy). Also, the cost of meeting this standard should be borne by the individual seeking to carry concealed.

Steve,
I love the Taser, but you are right it is not as versatile as a handgun. If someone accosts me with a knife, I'd just as soon Taser him, but I wouldn't feel obligated no to shoot him.

228. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210649 by Christopher Davis on July 15, 2008 at 12:07 am

Mitchell,

Call me selfish, but when it comes to people I care about...fuck the big picture.

I didn't use that anecdote to stir emotion, I used it to illustrate that criminals don't need guns to be dangerous.

Also, call me arrogant. The examples I gave regarding my personal experience with firearms was meant to illustrate that not everyone who has a gun is going to be over-anxious to use it. I really don't mean anything negative when I tell people like Brian I agree that they shouldn't own a firearm.

Unfortunately, criminals will always have the means of enforcing their will on their victims...be it with firearms, knives, bats, physical size and agression etc. A person should have a right to protect himself, his loved ones and his property. However, he should only be allowed to exercise this right if he is willing and ABLE to accept the responsibilities that come with ownership of a firearm.

Personally, I don't like guns, but I'm willing to use them to protect myself and others when necessary.

229. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210645 by Christopher Davis on July 14, 2008 at 11:44 pm

"It does follow that if people feel threatened and have a gun handy that more guns will be used."---Brian English

Not if they are properly trained. That's how you know whether or not you should be carrying a firearm in public. If your first reaction when you "feel" threatened is to go for your gun, you shouldn't be carrying it. You go for your gun (and use it) when you ARE threatened, not just because you're scared.

Mitchell Gilks, what type of confrontations are you talking about? Are you talking about heated arguments between two people who just happen to have guns? If so, see my above comments and revisit my comment about not advocating easy accessability to firearms.

If you are talking about average citizens responding to armed assailants, then the only potential problem I see is people getting shot going for their gun when the bad guy already has the drop on them and their best course of action would be to play it cool.

You are going to have to clarify this hazy concept of "confrontation" if you want to convince me.

Let me spell my postion out...I am FOR strict enforcement of existing U.S. gun laws, and a tightening of the requirements for private citizens to own and carry firearms. But anyone who thinks that the firearms themselves are the problem is naive.

230. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210643 by Christopher Davis on July 14, 2008 at 11:29 pm

Brian,

I'm not clear by what you mean by "my answer".

Also, the idea of having a gun in your home is not to protect yourself just from invaders who have guns. Two of those unsavory types I mentioned kicked in a door, beat a man nearly into a coma, and repeatedly raped his wife and daughter. All they had were knives.

231. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210635 by Christopher Davis on July 14, 2008 at 11:20 pm

"Well, CD, that wouldn't be flawed logic, that would be a mispresentation. It would be flawed logic if what I said didn't follow."---Mitchell Gilks

But it doesn't follow. Just because more people own guns, it doesn't mean that more people will be out confronting each other with them.

232. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210632 by Christopher Davis on July 14, 2008 at 11:16 pm

"I think gun is a fetish for some people, period"---Bonzai

Well said. And that is the difference in owning two firearms or ten.

Brian English, I'm really not trying to be condescending when I say that you are a good example of someone who should not own a firearm.

As for what I'd do if I thought someone was trying to hurt me and I had a gun well...

I was a cop for a short while and I drew my gun a couple of times when I was unsure of someone's intentions, but I didn't fire.

I'm an Army Reservist serving in Afghanistan where I routinely walk with a loaded rifle amongst a populace that I KNOW contains individuals who bear me extreme malice, and I've yet to shoot anyone.

My current civilian occupation is in corrections, part of my job is to transport unsavory types from our prison to various locations. I do this armed. So far, no prisoners have arrived with any extra holes in them.

The point I'm making is that I'm confident in my ability to responsibly wield a firearm. Of course, I have training that the average citizen does not possess.

Even though I could, I don't walk around with a concealed firearm, and the idea of handgun in every purse and pocket does not appeal to me. However, the idea that in the U.S., complete strangers don't invade people's homes with intent to do harm is a fallacy. Some of those aforementioned prisoners I transport have done just that.

233. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210615 by Christopher Davis on July 14, 2008 at 10:34 pm

"Making guns easiler accessable so that you can protect yourself from an armed man only increases the probability that you will arrive at a situation where you are confronted by an armed man."---Mitchell Gilks

This is flawed logic...and no one is saying that guns should be easily acesssible.

"But if you've a gun and have shot first to be sure..."---Brian English

Recon by Fire is never a good home protection strategy. Once again Brian, I'm not trying to pick on you, but you are the perfect example of someone who does not need to own a gun. Mainly because you appear to be deathly afraid of them.

Also, owning one or two guns doesn't constitute being "armed-to-the-teeth". Not everyone who supports the right of gun ownership is a Rambo wannabe.

234. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210605 by Christopher Davis on July 14, 2008 at 10:18 pm

Making comparisons between the U.S. and other western-style democracies regarding the personal ownership of firearms is useless. Different countries have different issues regarding the ownership (both legal and illegal)of firearms, and as such require different solutions to these problems.

Anyone out there who thinks that outlawing guns is the solution to the U.S.'s gun problems is naive.

Brian English, (nothing personal, yours is just the last dogmatic, anti-gun post on the thread as I write this) your arguments incline me to agree that it would be "batshit insane" to give you a gun. Not everyone is cut-out to carry a firearm, and anyone who thinks that the purpose of a personal firearm is to use against anyone they "perceive to be a threat", falls into that category.

It's a sad fact that in the U.S. the cops can't always protect you. Self-protection is not a specious argument for gun ownership. Unfortunately, not everyone who owns a gun for self-protection has the necessary good judgement and discretion (not to mention personal "sand")required.

While the idea of sitting in a college classroom with a bunch of gun-toting, hare-brained sorority sisters whose redneck fathers have insisted on them carrying a 44-Magnum for self-defense makes me jittery, I can't help but believe that if I had been sitting in one of those Va Tech classrooms with a concealed Glock, the final body count would have been less.

235. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210544 by Christopher Davis on July 14, 2008 at 7:14 pm

"I'm sorry but there is absolutely no defence whatsoever for gun legalisation."---Jaz

No need to be sorry, you are just confused. The justification for the legalization of firearms is that they exist.

While it is arguable that the world might be a better place if firearms had never been invented, they were invented. As such, a responsible government is obliged to institute effective legislation regarding firearms. The outright banning of guns would not be effective legislation...at least not in the U.S.

The U.S. gun problems stem more form the sloppy enforcement of existing gun-laws, a lack of education regarding the safe handling of firearms, and our social perceptions of firearms.

236. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210526 by Christopher Davis on July 14, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Dhamma,

Oh beleive me, Muslims give a damn about people showing respect for their religion, they just don't give a damn about reciprocating.

As for all the people who keep claiming that Islam being a peaceful religion...bullshit. It's a primitive religion. People confuse piety with peacefulness. Just because some guy prostrates himself before his "God" five times a day, it doesn't mean he's not a violent asshole.

Also, I'm sick of hearing that it's the "fundamentalists" who are giving Islam a bad name. Once again...bullshit. The number of Muslims who actively and vocally condemn the "fundamentalists" represent a numerically insignificant percentage, and generally have views regarding other aspects of Islam that would have most "good Muslims" branding them apostates.

While it may be a minority of Muslims who actually commit violent, terrorist-style actions, it is the majority of the Muslim world that simply shrugs its shoulders and goes right back to lying face-down in the camel shit in deference to their God. This level of apathy is particularly revealing when you consider how the Muslim world reacts to cartoons and comments they deem blasphemous.

Islam is a religion of ignorance, intolerance and indifference. Peace rarely figures into the equation.

237. Thousands Flock to Revival in Search of Miracles

Comment #209420 by Christopher Davis on July 12, 2008 at 6:50 am

"He has actively and passionately pursued God..."---article

God should take out a restraining order. It's the only way these guys ever learn.

238. An Original Confession

Comment #207510 by Christopher Davis on July 10, 2008 at 1:27 am

I read "Origin" earlier this year. I read it for a variety of reasons, none of which was to gain a better understanding of evolution.

I thought that in many places the prose was cumbersome,but there were passages that where Darwin elegantly expressed ideas that gave me a new appreciation for the man's brilliance.

239. New legal threat to school science in the US

Comment #207502 by Christopher Davis on July 10, 2008 at 12:48 am

Damn Al, it seems some people just have no sense of humor. Suggest a little positive eugenics and everybody gets upset, WTF?

However, I must admit that I almost took umbrage with your comments regarding slack-jawed yokels and ditch diggers.

When I was a young lad growing up in Alabama, I distinctly recall wanting to be a ditch-digger...when I was six, it seemed like fun.

240. McDonald's Makes Jesus Cry

Comment #207441 by Christopher Davis on July 9, 2008 at 8:25 pm

I don't particularly like the food at McDonalds, but I respect them as a business. They sell what people want, they provide "lack-of-nutrition information" regarding their food, and they are generally a positive force in the community. The "Ronald McDonald House" is one of the best charities I know of.

Unfortunately, ever since Morgan Spurlock's documentary (which I liked by the way), McDonalds has been getting blamed for people's fat asses and health problems, now they have these fundie idiots to contend with.

What a shame.

241. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202602 by Christopher Davis on July 1, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Al,

Not only that, but they would have been absolutely wiped out by the Russians without U.S. led foreign support.

I just finished reading "Charlie Wilson's War" and according to Crile's account, the Mujahideen creditied their turn of fortune not to U.S. and Saudi dollars or to Pakistani logistics and support, but to Allah. Every missile, every rifle, every bullet, was a gift from god.

It's no wonder that these desert bumpkins think their shit don't stink. As for the Pashtuns being fierce warriors...I've yet to meet one that impresses me. In the shurras, the "elder's"---many of whom claim to have fought the Soviets---cry and whine about the Taliban coming into their villages and beating them up.

Now I realize that most of the guys are in their fifities, but where is that warrior spirit? Furthermore, where are their sons? If these rhuemy-eyed old men really are men of importance, they'll have sons (and grandsons) old enough to fight. What kind of warrior stands by and lets some "outsiders from Pakistan" kick the shit out of their fathers?

Unfortunately, these are questions we are not supposed to ask because we might offend these very important men. It boggles the mind.

242. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202228 by Christopher Davis on July 1, 2008 at 4:38 am

hungarianelephant,

No. Opium is not much of a problem in Paktika Province. Although I think that there is a small trade in hashish.

I know I sometimes get a bit wound up and start condemning the entire country, but in reality my experience is limited to just Paktika.

Off the top of my head, I would recommend training up a few units of Afghan National Army and Afghan Border Patrol to focus strictly on counter-narcotics operations...but realistically, these guys are a long way from being able to specialize like that effectively.

243. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202202 by Christopher Davis on July 1, 2008 at 3:18 am

Goldy,

Just in case you didn't want to read all of that to distill an answer...

I'm against us building schools. In this culture, madrassa=education. A step forward would be Afghans getting their "education" in Afghan madrassas. As the economy improves, hopefully education will follow.

The reason I say build roads whether they want them or not, is because they want them. Problem is, like you said, they are horribly corrupt. If someone is going to build a road, everyone wants a cut. If the right people aren't getting the kickback they think they deserve, the whole project goes to shit.

Answer, we build the roads. No Afghan makes a single cent off the project.

244. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202197 by Christopher Davis on July 1, 2008 at 3:03 am

Styrer,

You asked if it is easy to get my ideas heard by the higher-ups...

Well, I'm working on putting this discombobulated rant into a positon paper regarding just the Province I work in, and trying to ram it up the chain.

I'll flesh it out, remove all references to "toothless savages", use specific examples, and try not to use the word "fuck", but I'm only a SGT. In all fairness though, I'm not the only one saying this (the medical plan is actually the idea of my COL).

Also, I don't know how many of these problems have already been identified and are being worked on at a higher level...the military is one slow moving beauracracy.

Either way, at least I'll feel like I did something besides drive a HUMVEE, stand guard tower, and drink tea with a bunch of useless old Afghans who have no qualms about lying to my face.

245. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202192 by Christopher Davis on July 1, 2008 at 2:47 am

I don't want this to turn into a post of epic length enough to rival one of teretornis' peak oil rants, but it's hard to convey with words just how difficult it is to move around here in the southeastern portion of Afghanistan. Roads are the answer.

With roads we can improve security, establish industry, and legitimize the Provincial government. Also, the locals like roads. They use roads. They get upset when the Taliban blow the (good)roads up. Conversely, when the Taliban blows up a school, nobody gives a shit (as long as their kids weren't in it at the time).

Problem is, we can't wait for the Afghans to build the roads. They don't have the ability, and their tribal conflicts and amazing levels of corruption stymie any effort you leave in their hands.

My solution...we build the roads. They'll bitch. They'll whine. They'll get over it.

Building clinics is also a lost cause. There are no doctors and a lot of these villagers are suspicious of western medicine. We should just send locals to Kabul and have them trained as doctors, let them return to their villages and do housecalls. 19th century medical care would be a hundred-year-leap forward for these people.

Admittedly, a program like this would have its own unique set of hurdles to clear, but at least it would be a step towards progress.

The last thing I would do is stop trying to bribe these people with trinkets. The U.S. Army's guidelines regarding Humanitarian Assistance are clear as to when HA is authorized. When we drive into a village, that although poor by our standards is actually doing pretty good, and start handing out shoes, flour and toys, it may feel like we are doing a good deed, but we are foolish if we think that we are buying any friends.

In fact, the mindset of some commanders is that we will drive up with a trailer full of goodies, but the villagers only get them if they cooperate and tell us where the Taliban are hiding. We aren't actually doing this yet (thank goodness) but that some think it's a good idea it shows the complete lack of understanding of Pashtuns and their culture.

246. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202176 by Christopher Davis on July 1, 2008 at 2:17 am

Well, since some of you asked...

The first thing I would do is stop building schools. While I agree that these people must be educated, we have to realize that throwing up a building does nothing to accomplish this.

I actually think that part of the problem is that some higher-ups in the decision making chain heard about "Three Cups of Tea" and only read the book-jacket. I read the book a couple of months ago and I admit that I was impressed by what Greg Mortenson was able to accomplish, his situation and the situation the U.S. Military faces in Paktika Province, Afghanistan are not remotely the same.

Mortenson's promise to those mountain villagers was inspired by the sight of a bunch of girls sitting outside, scratching their lessons in the dirt. There was a teacher, there was community support, there was a basic understanding of the value of education...the school already existed, they just needed a building. Mortenson honorably provided this.

Of course, before he could build the school building he had to build a bridge across a ravine in order to get the materials into the village.

We routinely commission schools in areas so remote that we spend 9-10 hrs. convoying out to the site just to check on it's progress. Everytime we put a school in an area that is not acessible by a major roadway we waste taxpayer dollars. The roads need to come first.

247. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202053 by Christopher Davis on June 30, 2008 at 5:59 pm

We never liberated Afghanistan. All we did was remove the Taliban from power.

Afghanistan will never be liberated as long as Pashtuns are the majority and insist on ruling the country.

For the last 3 years or so the entire effort has been to rebuild Afghanistan---to develop an infrastructure, to improve crop yields, and to educate the children---and these toothless fucking savages have been resisting progress since day one.

I'll admit, I can't speak for the entire country, but in the southeastern portion (Pashtunistan) our current strategy is hopeless.

The idea is to put an "Afghan face" on everything we do. So when we hand out "Humanitarian Aid" (a misnomer, because there is no humanitarian crisis here) we have the Afghan National Security Forces hand it out.

Any schools, clinics, roads, or bridges that need to be built have to be built by an Afghan contractor. And since Pashtuns are the most ignorant, unskilled people on the planet, these contractors aren't local...which opens a whole new can of worms.

Anyway, the end-state is that the average person doesn't want our roads, our schools, our clinics, etc.---they just want to be left alone. They appreciate the wells, and they will take anything you give them (shoes, tools, soccer balls)to sell in the Bazaar in Pakistan. But most of them would just as soon the Coalition and the Taliban go away so they can eke a living out of the dirt in peace.

The only way we are going to help these backwardass fuckers is to build roads where we want them to go, whether the locals like it or not. To hell with hiring local contractors to do the work, they suck and they have to pay enormous kickbacks to the locals to get anything accomplished.

To hell with building schools. They are no qualified teachers, no motivated students, and no interested parents. While education is the ultimate answer, school buildings are not the proximate solution. The only reason the village "elders" like schools is because it provides contractor kickbacks for them and manual labor for the locals.

These people have no sense of national unity, and no real concern for anyone outside their immediate tribe. As long as the Pashtuns are in charge, Afghanistan will remain a primitive, backwardsass land.

248. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201639 by Christopher Davis on June 30, 2008 at 1:15 am

"He does not imagine, or does not care to imagine, that beings higher than man would be finer and nobler than man, in much the same way that men are capable of nobler sentiments than a dog..."---the article

I know dogs that sniff out bombs, apprehend criminals, rescue people from fires, floods etc.

My civilian job is making sure 500 sex offenders (all of them men) stay behind bars.

I think there is quite a bit of species-overlap in the nobility department.

Also, none of the dogs I know profess to be religious, most of the sex offenders do.

249. Evangelical grunts

Comment #201076 by Christopher Davis on June 29, 2008 at 12:31 am

I've got mixed feelings on this.

As an atheist soldier deployed in Afghanistan I can attest that evangelicism is alive and well in the U.S. Army. However, I'm open about my views and I make no concessions to religion. When we have ceremonies that involve group prayer I do not bow my head. So far, no one has given me any shit or tried to convert me.

The only thing that I have had to endure was my Sergeant Major telling me that he thought atheism was a "mental weakness". I didn't argue because sometimes it's better to pick your battles.

What bothers me about this article is this statement...

"Incidents such as these can be exploited by al-Qaida and other jihadists to argue, rather convincingly, that the United States is not in a war against terrorism but a war against Islam."

Less than two weeks ago, two of my team-members were killed in a rocket attack. Seven more were wounded...three seriously. From the radio traffic we intercepted it is clear that the people who killed my friends did so out of religious conviction.

Not only that, but press releases in the Muslim world continuously report on the attacks as "blows against the Christian invaders", they brag about how many "cross worshippers" and "apostates" (Afghan soldiers, police, etc.) they kill, and they beg for Allah's continued support.

Whether we like it or not, in the eyes of the people trying to kill us, we are at war with Islam.

While I wholeheartedly agree that the idea that people of influence in our military would actively attempt to mould "warriors for Jesus" is repugnant, it is plain stupid to try and pretend that religion plays no part in this conflict.

Osama Bin Laden has repeatedly told us why he hates us...our government's support for Isreal, our failure to denounce China, Russia, and India for their acts against Muslims, and our refusal to leave Muslim lands.

To us these reasons sound political, to Bin Laden and those who support him they are religious.

The simple fact is, soldiers who are forward deployed are expected to walk on eggshells to avoid offending the religious sensibilities of Muslims.

The commanders who are allowing their troops to be sold on this idea that we are fighting a war for Jesus should be court-martialed and drummed out of the military. However, we shouldn't be expected to kowtow and kiss the Muslim worlds ass everytime one of our soldiers does something stupid.

I've never heard a single apology from anyone of status in the Muslim world for the nearly 5000 servicemen and women who have died at the hands of the radicals of Islam.

250. Non-voters: It's all in God's hands

Comment #200981 by Christopher Davis on June 28, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Layla,

I'm an American, a soldier in fact (does my avatar show up?).

Anyway, you're right. My sugesstion wasn't nice. Problem is, when you get these people, be they Christian, Muslim or whatever, who honestly believe that everything is in God's hands, it's annoying.

I'm in Afghanistan, and this "Inshallah culture" they subscribe to gives them an excuse to be lazy and dodge responsibility.

Born-again Christians are almost as bad, but they generally still go to work and plan for the future. Their abdication of responsibilty ususally takes the form of "I used to be an alcoholic, wife-beating SOB, until Jesus saved me." Then they go on to tell you how people are powerless to change anything in their lives unless they give everything over to Jesus.

So yeah, I still think ripping up their ballots is a good idea...nice or not.