Some facts about guns in the US

[iceaura]

In 1950 the cheapest car on the road was the VW Bug (30 hp) - $1280, or $12,290 in today's dollars.

1950? Let's draw a more reasonable line - how about 1965?

And progressive airbags, vehicle stability systems, precrash systems and better crash standards (as indicated by improving survivability stats) would be a few others

Mostly problematic. All expensive.

Average horsepower has gone up 112% (all cars and trucks) since 1980.

I don't doubt it. 1980 cars built in the US were pretty miserable - they had lost the intrinsic power to the anti-pollution and mileage regs, and hadn't learned to build an engine they could wind up. And the imports were selling on gas mileage - four cylinder engines were more common. That made the imports cheaper to run than what you can buy today, and intrinsically cleaner, of course.

People want bigger trucks and now they can get them.

But if they want cleaner, cheaper, more efficient trucks, they can't get them. Which was the point.

Cars and trucks last far longer today. Back in 1970, vehicles rarely made it past 100,000 miles - their odometers didn't even go above 99,999 miles. Nowadays cars over 100,000 miles are very common, and used cars with 150,000 miles on them get good prices.

They cost more, per mile. That erodes their purchase price advantage, if any. I used to run late 60s Buicks standard - they got cheap after 100k, and it was pretty easy to get 175k out of them. No such deals on the road now.

Right. So today you have cars that go farther on less gas, and that last longer

And cost more per mile, in terms of median wage

They have MORE crush room (it is designed in, rather than being accidental with 1970's era cars.)

They have less, apples to apples - whether accidentally or not. Have a seat in a '69 LeSabre, look around.

There have been safety improvements in car design, absolutely. But there have also been expensive developments that do not improve my safety or my typical passengers's safety in comparison with earlier built cars I have owned - even reduce it, in some circumstances.

But per the NTSB they save a lot of lives.

Until you look at their stats. Then you see problems.

The NTSB does not, for example, keep net statistics - they don't, say, track the people whom air bags or ABS brakes have seriously injured or killed, and subtract that number from the ones saved. They don't separate out the seat belt usage crashes from the non-belted crashes when evaluating air bags and ABS brakes and the rest. And so forth.

This kind of fooling around with safety and regulation statistics, in particular, is a central factor in the gun control public discussion. Since the entire issue is safety, the inherent bias in government stats to make their regulations and intrusions look good becomes a focus of suspicion and conflict and opposition.

 

[billvon]

1950? Let's draw a more reasonable line - how about 1965?

Sure. In 1965 a Beetle cost $1663 in the one ad I could find. $12,123 in today's dollars - still more than the Versa.

Mostly problematic. All expensive.

True, they had some problems and are expensive. But with them fatalities have gone way down, and cost has gone down as well.

I don't doubt it. 1980 cars built in the US were pretty miserable - they had lost the intrinsic power to the anti-pollution and mileage regs, and hadn't learned to build an engine they could wind up. And the imports were selling on gas mileage - four cylinder engines were more common. That made the imports cheaper to run than what you can buy today, and intrinsically cleaner, of course.

Agreed.

But if they want cleaner, cheaper, more efficient trucks, they can't get them. Which was the point.

Not true. You can get cleaner, cheaper, more efficient trucks today than you ever could, provable by cost figures, emissions levels and MPG standards for vehicle class.

They cost more, per mile. That erodes their purchase price advantage, if any. I used to run late 60s Buicks standard - they got cheap after 100k, and it was pretty easy to get 175k out of them. No such deals on the road now.

There are plenty of Priuses used as taxis that have passed 300,000 miles without major problems. The average age and average mileage of cars has gone up with time as they've gotten more reliable.

There have been safety improvements in car design, absolutely. But there have also been expensive developments that do not improve my safety or my typical passengers's safety in comparison with earlier built cars I have owned - even reduce it, in some circumstances.

Agreed. But again, OVERALL safety has improved for both you and your passenger. For example, CAFE standards have made cars lighter, which might decrease safety in isolation. However, better cabin design, better design of steering wheels and doors, better design of crush zones and the development of new materials (high strength steel) has, overall, made cars safer even as they have gotten lighter.

Until you look at their stats. Then you see problems.

What, specifically, are the problems with their stats?

The NTSB does not, for example, keep net statistics - they don't, say, track the people whom air bags or ABS brakes have seriously injured or killed, and subtract that number from the ones saved. They don't separate out the seat belt usage crashes from the non-belted crashes when evaluating air bags and ABS brakes and the rest.

They do indeed do that for a great many crashes, and use that data to predict (for example) how effective air bags, seat belts etc are. For example, one of the most studied crashes of all time occurred in the early 1980's when two nearly-identical cars, both equipped with early airbags, collided head-on with a closing speed of about 60mph. It was common knowledge at the time that such a crash was not survivable - but both drivers survived and suffered only minor injuries. The manufacturer (I believe it was GM) purchased both cars from the drivers and studied them; they allowed the NTSB to participate in the study as well. As a result they got quite good real-world data on how airbags worked - and on how to improve them.
In a larger sense they get airbag and seatbelt data from every single accident they can, and this forms part of the basis for their report. They also look at _all_ accidents, including ones where airbag or seatbelt data is not available, and that also forms part of the basis for their report. In both cases (known airbag use and estimated airbag use) airbags unequivocally save lives.

This kind of fooling around with safety and regulation statistics, in particular, is a central factor in the gun control public discussion. Since the entire issue is safety, the inherent bias in government stats to make their regulations and intrusions look good becomes a focus of suspicion and conflict and opposition.

The opposite is true as well. In the gun debate, there are people who believe that the government is out to "grab their guns" and thus do not trust anything the government says. Their inherent bias towards disbelieving anything and everything causes them to be somewhat handicapped in serious debates about the issue, because if someone does not believe anything other than their own experiences, they can't really contribute to a wider discussion that might impact other people with different experiences.

 

[Write4U]

Here is a fact about guns. I lasted about 10 seconds, before I broke down and cried from the heart.

http://www.upworthy.com/graphic-how-many-seconds-of-this-video-can-you-make-it-through?c=upw1

 

[sculptor]

2 does and a fawn grazing in the garden with the chickens
hunting season starts soon
and, I still have some ribs and roasts from last year

cold here today
and I just got back from the hospital this morning and feel a bit down/weak yet.

 

[Write4U]

2 does and a fawn grazing in the garden with the chickens
hunting season starts soon
and, I still have some ribs and roasts from last year

cold here today
and I just got back from the hospital this morning and feel a bit down/weak yet.

question; would you shoot an Elk for its antlers and ivory molars and leave the carcass to rot? That's what they do with elephants.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Here is a fact about guns. I lasted about 10 seconds, before I broke down and cried from the heart.

I would stifle my complaints if the macho men with their big guns were shooting deer, wild boar and Canada geese, because those species are doing almost as much damage to the environment as humans. And they all make good eatin'!

But people who kill elephants, rhinos, whales and dolphins should simply be dropped into the ocean with no flotation device.

 

[Write4U]

I would stifle my complaints if the macho men with their big guns were shooting deer, wild boar and Canada geese, because those species are doing almost as much damage to the environment as humans. And they all make good eatin'!

But people who kill elephants, rhinos, whales and dolphins should simply be dropped into the ocean with no flotation device.

While I have no objections to hunting for meat, but I completely disagree with your assessment that any form of wildlife is damaging the environment. They haven't for millions of years, so why should they now be bad for the environment? Or do you mean they are bad for human made environment?

And I am in total agreement with your objection to hunting "endangered" species. No one ever mentions that it is humans who are endangering those species.

 

[sculptor]

question; would you shoot an Elk for its antlers and ivory molars and leave the carcass to rot? That's what they do with elephants.

no
not me
I hunt and fish and garden and tap the maple trees for food.

I trade the deer hides for gloves
(I tried tanning 3, but that is a lot of work for the leather----maybe one day' I'll sew something with them but, I ain't used them yet)

.............
Canada Geese harm the environment?

 

[Dr_Toad]

Have you ever slipped in goosecrap and fallen down the slope, over the bluff, and straight into Long Island Sound?

Damned straight they harm the environment! uke:

 

[sculptor]

lol

 

[iceaura]

"The NTSB does not, for example, keep net statistics - they don't, say, track the people whom air bags or ABS brakes have seriously injured or killed, and subtract that number from the ones saved. They don't separate out the seat belt usage crashes from the non-belted crashes when evaluating air bags and ABS brakes and the rest."
They do indeed do that - - -

No, they don't. Try and find some.

But again, OVERALL safety has improved for both you and your passenger.

Probably not for me - I always wear a seat belt, never drive drunk, always drive used cars, brake with reasonable competence, often drive on ice and snow, and value my hearing and the ligaments in my hands more highly than the government seems to.

"But if they want cleaner, cheaper, more efficient trucks, they can't get them. Which was the point."
Not true. You can get cleaner, cheaper, more efficient trucks today than you ever could, provable by cost figures, emissions levels and MPG standards for vehicle class.

No, you can't. Compare, say, my early 80s Toyota 3/4 ton 22R long box pickup with what's on the lot today. And that truck had a catalytic converter.

The opposite is true as well. In the gun debate, there are people who believe that the government is out to "grab their guns" and thus do not trust anything the government says.

A point I have been making repeatedly here, and the reason I pointed to other "safety" arenas in which the government keeps obviously biased statistics and employs bad reasoning in its impositions, thereby fueling paranoia. Hence the gridlock, and the lack of sensible gun regulation in the US.

 

[Write4U]

no
not me
I hunt and fish and garden and tap the maple trees for food.

I trade the deer hides for gloves
(I tried tanning 3, but that is a lot of work for the leather----maybe one day' I'll sew something with them but, I ain't used them yet)

.............
Canada Geese harm the environment?

I have brain tanned about 300 hides (salvaged from dumpsters or bought from butchers) and what hides we did not use for making moccassins, gloves and totebags we donated to tribes.

 

[Write4U]

Have you ever slipped in goosecrap and fallen down the slope, over the bluff, and straight into Long Island Sound?

Damned straight they harm the environment! uke:

What were you doing in THEIR environment? Hunting geese?

 

[billvon]

Probably not for me - I always wear a seat belt, never drive drunk, always drive used cars, brake with reasonable competence, often drive on ice and snow, and value my hearing and the ligaments in my hands more highly than the government seems to.

You are still much more likely to survive a high speed crash (>30mph) in a modern car than in an older car - and unfortunately sometimes such crashes happen, even when the driver is competent.

No, you can't. Compare, say, my early 80s Toyota 3/4 ton 22R long box pickup with what's on the lot today. And that truck had a catalytic converter.

I am certainly not going to tell you your truck is no good. If it works for you, great - and older trucks work for a lot of people.
However they have:

Gotten more efficient. Light duty trucks, on average, have gone from 19.5mpg (1985) to 25.7mpg today. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/r...ansportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html
Gotten cleaner. NOx emissions alone have decreased by more than an order of magnitude between 1988 and today. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=iBXKxzW71vnFM_e-2zkC2g&bvm=bv.75097201,d.aWw

A point I have been making repeatedly here, and the reason I pointed to other "safety" arenas in which the government keeps obviously biased statistics and employs bad reasoning in its impositions, thereby fueling paranoia. Hence the gridlock, and the lack of sensible gun regulation in the US.

Perhaps, but in this case it's a poor comparison, since the NHTSA's stats agrees with IIHS statistics, a private organization funded by insurance companies (who have a very strong interest in getting the numbers right):
============
Airbags are one of the most important safety innovations of recent decades. They provide crucial cushioning for people during a crash. The devices are normally hidden from view but inflate instantly when a crash begins. Thanks to the advocacy of IIHS and others, frontal airbags have been required in all new passenger vehicles since the 1999 model year. Side airbags aren't specifically mandated, but nearly all manufacturers include them as standard equipment in order to meet federal side protection requirements.

Both frontal and side airbags save lives. Frontal airbags reduce driver fatalities in frontal crashes by 29 percent and fatalities of front-seat passengers age 13 and older by 32 percent. Side airbags that protect the head reduce a car driver's risk of death in driver-side crashes by 37 percent and an SUV driver's risk by 52 percent.
=============
So if your argument is "gun stats are just like auto safety stats!" then the lesson there would be that you can trust the government's numbers; I have a feeling that wasn't your intent.

 

[Kittamaru]

I have brain tanned about 300 hides (salvaged from dumpsters or bought from butchers) and what hides we did not use for making moccassins, gloves and totebags we donated to tribes.

I would love to try this some time... but all of the "butchers" around my immediate area do not get actual animals, but rather partially-processed "parts"

 

[sculptor]

I have brain tanned about 300 hides (salvaged from dumpsters or bought from butchers) and what hides we did not use for making moccassins, gloves and totebags we donated to tribes.

WOW
ok: I most likely do not know the most efficient way of tanning hides(or I'm just really lazy?).

How long does it take you per hide? Fur on or off?
Special tools? or working stands? (I tried working on a smooth log, and stretching the hide on plywood before scraping with an old cabinet scraper, etc)

Any information would be welcome.

I rarely shoot more than 4(white tails), usually 2-3. Young(2-4 years) does seem to offer the best meat, while the big bucks offer the most meat per deer. Mostly, the number shot has to do with freezer space. As a land owner, I get 2 tags for $2.00 each, and 2 more for $13,00 each so I usually buy all 4 tags($30.00) and rarely use all of them. Amortizing the cost of the weapons and including the ammunition, it still comes out to less than $30 per deer, which comes out to about 50 cents per pound of healthy meat. ---Then, I get a $7.00 pair of gloves for the hide. Deducting the value of the gloves, means closer to 40 cents per pound of meat when I shoot all 4.
But I only shoot on my property.

 

[Dr_Toad]

I learned how to tan a rattlesnake skin not too long ago, and then read up on tanning deer and other large beasts. The snakeskin turned out really well, supple and heavy, and my son is damned proud of his hatband on his Stetson.

Brain-tanning deer is another story. I thought I had some links saved, dammit. I'll look for them and post back, but suffice it to say that it's labor-intensive, messy and smelly as hell for a while. uke:

(Love that smiley)

 

[iceaura]

Gotten more efficient. Light duty trucks, on average, have gone from 19.5mpg (1985) to 25.7mpg today. http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/ri...ble_04_23.html
Gotten cleaner. NOx emissions alone have decreased by more than an order of magnitude between 1988 and today. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...75097201,d.aWw

Why are you giving me averages from government test numbers, when my points were about specific availability and the defects of those government numbers?

Both frontal and side airbags save lives. Frontal airbags reduce driver fatalities in frontal crashes by 29 percent and fatalities of front-seat passengers age 13 and older by 32 percent. Side airbags that protect the head reduce a car driver's risk of death in driver-side crashes by 37 percent and an SUV driver's risk by 52 percent.

Those are the kinds of numbers I was complaining about, above. Dig into them, and you will find problems - notice, for starters, that they are not net: nobody is tracking the number of people seriously injured or even killed by air bags, nobody is tracking and correcting for seat belt usage, and so forth. The question "37% compared with what?" is central, and not answered well.

Perhaps, but in this case it's a poor comparison, since the NHTSA's stats agrees with IIHS statistics, a private organization funded by insurance companies (who have a very strong interest in getting the numbers right):

No, the insurance companies have a very strong interest in reducing their outlay, at the expense of everyone else if necessary. No marginal cost of even the slightest gain in safety is too high for them, no policy too intrusive, if the cost is borne by others. They pay in general nothing for hearing loss caused by air bag detonation, for example. If air bags are slight net hazards for belted passengers in non-SUV vehicles and large net benefits for unbelted in all vehicles, the insurance company will go with whatever saves them money overall - even if most people are actually put at slightly greater risk of serious injury, and a few are presented with an otherwise avoidable risk of catastrophe.

That, and the fact that the necessary data for answering some of these questions is not being collected - so the insurance companies are no better informed than we are. Have you found any of those net statistics I mentioned?

So if your argument is "gun stats are just like auto safety stats!

My argument is that the US government has a history of justifying intrusions and impositions on spurious grounds of "safety", the experience of this is common, and the frequently encountered obliviousness of the gun control promoters to this circumstance makes gun control efforts more threatening than they need to be. This perfectly well founded threat fuels paranoia and reflexive opposition.

 

[billvon]

Why are you giving me averages from government test numbers, when my points were about specific availability and the defects of those government numbers?

Because those test numbers come from third party emissions analysis equipment, and the requirement numbers are the hard numbers that car manufacturers are required to design to. You cannot seriously claim that they are unreal, since there are quite literally tens of millions of independent tests every year that confirm them.

No, the insurance companies have a very strong interest in reducing their outlay, at the expense of everyone else if necessary. No marginal cost of even the slightest gain in safety is too high for them, no policy too intrusive, if the cost is borne by others. They pay in general nothing for hearing loss caused by air bag detonation, for example. If air bags are slight net hazards for belted passengers in non-SUV vehicles and large net benefits for unbelted in all vehicles, the insurance company will go with whatever saves them money overall - even if most people are actually put at slightly greater risk of serious injury, and a few are presented with an otherwise avoidable risk of catastrophe.

Correct. In other words, what reduces the most risk for the most people.

To use a famous example, you can decide not to wear a seatbelt so you will be "thrown clear of the wreck." That might save your life in one in ten million accidents. It will also cost you your life in one of ten. Thus having everyone wear seatbelts is a good idea. You can claim that there's a "loss of freedom" from having to wear a seatbelt - but you can't reasonably argue that there's a loss of overall safety.

My argument is that the US government has a history of justifying intrusions and impositions on spurious grounds of "safety",

Yes, they have. And 99 times out of 100 such impositions do in fact promote the general welfare of the people of the US.

the experience of this is common

That's a perception created by media.

and the frequently encountered obliviousness of the gun control promoters to this circumstance makes gun control efforts more threatening than they need to be. This perfectly well founded threat fuels paranoia and reflexive opposition.

Sounds like a case where both sides are paranoid and fearful. Fortunately most people are not like that.

 

[Write4U]

WOW
ok: I most likely do not know the most efficient way of tanning hides(or I'm just really lazy?).

How long does it take you per hide? Fur on or off?
Special tools? or working stands? (I tried working on a smooth log, and stretching the hide on plywood before scraping with an old cabinet scraper, etc)

Any information would be welcome.

I rarely shoot more than 4(white tails), usually 2-3. Young(2-4 years) does seem to offer the best meat, while the big bucks offer the most meat per deer. Mostly, the number shot has to do with freezer space. As a land owner, I get 2 tags for $2.00 each, and 2 more for $13,00 each so I usually buy all 4 tags($30.00) and rarely use all of them. Amortizing the cost of the weapons and including the ammunition, it still comes out to less than $30 per deer, which comes out to about 50 cents per pound of healthy meat. ---Then, I get a $7.00 pair of gloves for the hide. Deducting the value of the gloves, means closer to 40 cents per pound of meat when I shoot all 4.
But I only shoot on my property.

I started a whole page of (modernized) traditional hand tanning, but a glitch wiped it all.

I'll write the entire process and send it to you later.
But I can give you a list of required tools in order of use on a fresh hide to produce hairless soft cloth (young deer hides are very light), of the highest quality.

Required tools.
a) a clean 50 galon drum for soaking.
b) a bag of rock salt
c) a 10'-12' smooth round 10"-12" circumference pipe . I used a 12" plastic sewer pipe (with bottom cut diagonally)
d) a very sharp, large wide kitchen knife and knife sharpener (you'll need it)
e) a two handled curved "draw knife" with the cutting edge flattened (with file dull the edge for scraping, rather than cutting). A lot of indians use folded up large can tops, but they work not nearly as well as a draw knife
f) protective goggles and face mask ( it is a messy procedure)
e) 2 pig brains (if not available use a simiar amount of Crisco)
f) a drying line for hanging drying hides
g) a (enclosed) smoke house large enought to hang hides and soak up the oils from the smoke, and lots of rotted wood from tree stumps.
(Diiferent woods will produce different colors of tan. A reddish wood such as Larch is excellent for smoking as it creates embers which release lots of smoke and create a beautiful even tan.)
h) heavy duty sewing machine that can accommodate thick material.
i) a box knife to cut laces.
j) a pair of high quality scissors for trimming final product.

I'll type the entire procedure procedure and send seperately, it is a lot of hard work and to do it right it'll take about 3-4 days to create a hairless cloth so soft, you can bead it with a needle. Brain tanning requires hard dedicated work, which will instill part of your soul into the cloth. We entered a few of our hides in an Indian fair and won a blue ribbon for craftsmanship and my wife (native american) was honored with an Eagle feather, which was awesome and hangs on the wall draped over a painted drum.

We used mostly Elk hide, but deer is much easier (smaller and not as tough as Elk]. Deer hide make excellent leggings and clothing, but if soles are processed deer, they can only be used indoors. For outside use you need to add a hard sole such as a partially processed neck hide of a bull, which is very thick and strong while in rut (winter time).

Young deer hide, properly prepared, can be beaded and used as cloth for shirts or even baby moccassins. We sold adult moccasins @ $80- 120 depending on height of top (leggings)

OK, next installment to follow soon. This time I'll type and save it before posting. Below is link to some examples of primo tanning.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...native+american+hand+tanning&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=