For this discussion, I am not including crimes but only talking about consensual sex between a man and woman. Men don't have any reproductive rights and rely completely on the choice of the woman.
A
woman has her choice of about 50 different forms of birth control in
various forms including pills and IUD. These are all medical
procedures and her partners can't observe her using them or that she is
doing so correctly. In fact, he has no right to even ask about it
but can only trust that she is telling the truth. If those methods
fail, then she may obtain a morning after pill or get an abortion.
Even after she carries a baby to term, she can still give the baby up for
adoption or drop it off at a safe haven. All of this is the woman's
choice and she doesn't have to consult the father nor does he have any
rights to the child. Most states don't even grant the father access in
the case of safe haven or adoption.
The
man has one choice of birth control. A condom. The woman can
observe him using it and if he is using it correctly. She could
even sabotage it and he would never know.
With
all that, if the woman chooses to keep the baby then the man is legally
liable for child support even if he never wanted the child, paternity
fraud, theft, or rape.
Some would give the standard mantra of "Woman's body, woman's choice" That's fine too! Man's wallet, Man's choice. If a man doesn't want to be a parent then the woman can still chose to have the child but she would have to be willing to do it without someone else footing the bill!
Some have replied that it only means should not sleep around. If that is the case then the same should apply to women and then abortion nor birth control would never be an issue!
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Thursday, March 14, 2013
My Story
It's a shame that I am writing about a topic that I should know the most about and yet I am having trouble figuring out where to start or how to describe it. I'm going to keep names out as my intention is not to call people out. This is probably more therapy for myself since real therapy is too expensive. I think this is the first time I have actually wrote this out. Perhaps its because of my mom's recent attempts to go on a talk show to air our dirty laundry to the world. I wasn't able to go but it would have been nice to have a three day vacation in New York.
I know the stories from people in my family and my mother denies them all. She refuses to take responsibility for any of her actions. I grew up with her telling me how she was the black sheep of the family who was constantly victimized. She refused to be involved in family events and the villain of her stories depends on who was alive at the time. While my grandmother was alive she was always the one to blame. My grandfather was to blame after she died. Someone always corrupted me and set me against my her because I guess I could never have figured it out on my own. Now that both of her parents are done she has denied my relation to her.
The fact is that none of my earliest memories include my mother. I remember in the second grade I had a terrible time learning to read and it was my grandmother who spent the long nights trying to help me learn. The few times I do recall are things that were traumatic to me as a child.
I do recall some of the time I spent in Tulsa with her during my first grade year. I know it wasn't the full year because part of the year was spent in school at my grandparents. I remember the wonderful stories my sister told me after spending one summer with our mother and her new husband. On my sisters return, I decided to go to Tulsa for a while. I don't recall if I was actually given a choice but I do recall how quickly those stories my sister told seemed to be lies. The house she described staying in was not the house were in. In fact, we had moved into a second story apartment in front of some low income day care. I remember a large shopping center being across the street.
About this time was when Michael Jackson's Thriller album came out. It was one of my first records purchased. Initially, I remember being enrolled in a good school. It was bright and fun. That doesn't last as I was soon enrolled in a private school where a foreign language and computers were required for first grade students. The place required a dress code and was cold. It was probably one of the worst environments for a child to be in because I only remembered being scared there. The walls were bare red bricks for the most part. The daycare had more in common with the bare metal buildings at the fair grounds. It was like a large hanger with what seemed like army surplus cots in rows. You laid down until someone come got you when you're parents arrived. The food service was like a soup kitchen.
This soon became worse as things got bad between my mother and her husband. I recall my sister being there and my mother telling us to hide. We ran for mom's bed room and crawled under the head board of the water bed crying in fear. This soon gave way to memories of my grandfather coming to our rescue. This was after step-dad had vandalized the apartment even destroying most of her clothes. I recalling being in the truck watching my grandfather who was an old man at the time but still an opposing individual. He slapped the keys from the hand of a soon to be ex dad.
I remember the trip back to the only home I knew as a child which was that of my maternal grandparents. The only reason I remember the trip was because a blue, round pillow that I had used nearly every night to cry into was packed lightly and blew out of the truck bed while traveling down the highway. This pillow had been the only source of comfort while in Tulsa and it was now gone. I lived with my grandparents after no more than six months and it was uneventful.
My only other memory of her afterwards was actually caught in pictures. I was living with my grandparents and "Laser Tag" had just come out and I got a set for my birthday. I immediately put on the equipment over my pajamas and called my mom to tell her the good news. She accused me of only calling when I wanted money and during her barrage I broke out crying. It was about this time someone came around the door snapping a picture of me noticing afterwards the streams of tears. I'm not sure if this picture still exists.
I have almost no memories of my real father from early childhood. At nearly 11, I was told that I would have to stay with my mom during the summer because the judge wouldn't like it if I was living at my grandparents. I remember being instructed to tell the judge that "I wanted to live with my mom" because grandma wasn't a valid answer. I remember waiting outside the court room with my grandmother in case the judge wanted to talk with me. Thankfully, that moment never came. It did give me the first clear memory of my biological dad as he was being hauled out of the court in hand cuffs. Prior to this, my only memories of him was during a birthday where he was sitting on a couch as I unwrapped a toy semi-truck and visiting him in a white house that had some fruiting tree outside the window. (I still have that semi-truck which I gave to my son)
Oddly again, my sister spent the previous summer with my mom and I was told the stories from my sister about the wonderful house my mom kept; complete with pictures of her pet bird comically being put outside during the summer to air out. Looking back, I think that this was done on purpose to remove any objection I would have to being there. My mother's previous comments and actions shows she didn't care much for my sister. This is probably because I was the first born male in a family of girls which gave me a special standing with my grandfather. This seemed to be confirmed as I was apparently used as a bargaining chip. Her new home was a trailer and I remember begging my grandparents to come get me during the first storm because of how the trailer swayed in the wind.
The first year at this trailer started the summer before my 5th grade year and wasn't so bad as I often came back to my grandparents for weekends. I spent most of my time outside with a few local kids or down at the ponds fishing. I never ate the fish. Usually I would start with a piece of lunch meat. I would use the fish I caught as bait so I could go all day. (Turtles made the best bait.) This did not last long, as my mom was soon going to bars what seemed every night with her cousin. I was left in the care of the cousin's delinquent older kid who was heavy into skateboarding and smoking. Naturally, I used him as a role model and soon had long hair, smoking, and a skateboard.
I remember he had built a make shift ramp to practice tricks. We would spend late nights during the summer laying out on this ramp smoking cigarettes. Even though I had severe asthma as a child, the cigarettes seemed to help more than hurt. I never really learned to skate well despite having skinned knees many times.
I was by no means a popular kid. I had very few friends. There are only two that I recall. I only mention these two because they are the only ones I really had contact with outside of school. The first lived down the street from my grandparents and we played all the time. When I moved in with my mom, that friendship was lost. The second was a kid I had known since kindergarten and at school we were inseparable. We occasionally played outside of school.
My 5th grade year was probably one of the more difficult years I can remember. I was having trouble adapting with the problems at home and by then I was being bullied by other kids. I remember two kids specifically who gave me the most trouble. One of these kids was extremely fat for his age and the other seemed to be extremely homophobic although at the urinals he was constantly trying to catch a peak of your junk. The fat one constantly hit and pushed me around. The other was mainly verbal until it climaxed into him slamming my head into the walls at school. I never fought back because I was always told I would get in more trouble at home. I had forgotten about most of this until I enrolled my kids at the same school.
I took a lot of this out on my school friend and started to gain a lot of weight. About half way through the school year, I had burned the bridge with my last friend as I had become the bully. Unknown to me at the time, the friend's parents divorced at about the same time and moved away. I was alone and devastated even though I had been a complete jerk.
I started my 6th grade year at a new school in a new town with no friends. We had moved to an apartment complex behind my new school. The school was merely a walk across a large field from the apartment. I spent a lot of time in this field setting off model rockets. I think we only spent a few winter months there.
At this time, my mom was with someone new who used to have dreams of being a professional football player. I suspect he had a lot to do with me being required to play for the school team. Perhaps in an attempt to get new friends and to lose weight. Most of the team had come up together from pee-wee with the coach. I was banished to second string which never got to play, regardless of their skill, unless the first string had been injured. In fact, I only recall being able to play during a game once. My mother never attended my practices and rarely any games. Her boyfriend was there nearly every time I wore the uniform. I was never fully accepted by the other kids which seem only to drive me further into isolation. The benefit was I dropped a lot of weight but still thick.
I believe it was at this time I had met my new best friend in a computer programming class. I think I joined the class because I recalled my confusing experience with computers in Tulsa and was curious to learn more. I didn't really become strong friends with him until later.
We soon moved into the apartment complex ran by the boyfriends parents at the beginning on my 7th grade year. It was a large complex and I did play on occasion with kids that lived there. One was a small thing that always wore shorts no matter what the weather was like. The other was probably your typical nerd who spent more time making model airplanes than playing with friends.
I probably spent most of my time riding my bike around the complex and the neighboring houses. I can even remember some of the horrible bike wrecks I had. One specifically, was down a hill and I clipped a man hole cover with the front tire. I went sliding on my stomach as the bike did a somersault over my head landing a few inches from my nose. With a few new scraps I dusted myself off and I was back on the road.
As a pretend family, we visited almost every state park in Oklahoma. I remember the time at Red Rock canyon and stopping along the road since the adults were tired to continue driving. We had a pop-up camper and it rained all night. I only remember because I spent the night soaked in rain water since the camper was second hand and in poor repair.
I vaguely remember digging for salt crystals in the salt lake and robbers cave. I clearly remember going to Turner falls. I spent most of the time riding down the river on a raft. By the time we came home, I was so terribly sunburned that I had blisters on my back and shoulders. I remember the miserable week afterwards because I was unable to move and kept myself bathed in lotion constantly. Looking back, I probably belonged in a burn unit.
Toward the end of my 7th year, we moved into a house that was closer to my new best friend. It was fairly small but it was nice. The old acquaintances from the apartments disappeared as I only saw them at school. It seems odd that friendship as kids seem dependent on if you could see them outside of school. I had a few other friends but I didn't spend a lot of time with them. I do remember spending a large amount of time with an old TRS-80 entering lines of code. I don't recall many of those programs working.
It was also at this time one of my friends was able to get cigarettes. When I spent time with him it was usually to smoke at the local park. This continued on through the 8th grade year although the former football guy was out of the picture. My mother said she had been bored with him and happen to be at the time she found her marriage wasn't valid because the divorce with her ex was never finalized. This started the major decline of my childhood. The time at this house had been one of the easiest times in my life. Sprinkled with liberal visitation at my grandparents during the summer and weekends. My grandparent's house was always home to me. In addition, they had gotten a new Tandy TL2 that I played on all the time. I spent the majority of my time playing civilization on the computer.
He was replaced by a drug addict who first introduced me to the YMCA's gym. It wasn't long until the drug guy went on another bender and was gone. Soon afterwards, my mom met a new guy and we moved outside of town to his house in the country.
This is really where the dark ages began. . .
I know the stories from people in my family and my mother denies them all. She refuses to take responsibility for any of her actions. I grew up with her telling me how she was the black sheep of the family who was constantly victimized. She refused to be involved in family events and the villain of her stories depends on who was alive at the time. While my grandmother was alive she was always the one to blame. My grandfather was to blame after she died. Someone always corrupted me and set me against my her because I guess I could never have figured it out on my own. Now that both of her parents are done she has denied my relation to her.
The fact is that none of my earliest memories include my mother. I remember in the second grade I had a terrible time learning to read and it was my grandmother who spent the long nights trying to help me learn. The few times I do recall are things that were traumatic to me as a child.
I do recall some of the time I spent in Tulsa with her during my first grade year. I know it wasn't the full year because part of the year was spent in school at my grandparents. I remember the wonderful stories my sister told me after spending one summer with our mother and her new husband. On my sisters return, I decided to go to Tulsa for a while. I don't recall if I was actually given a choice but I do recall how quickly those stories my sister told seemed to be lies. The house she described staying in was not the house were in. In fact, we had moved into a second story apartment in front of some low income day care. I remember a large shopping center being across the street.
About this time was when Michael Jackson's Thriller album came out. It was one of my first records purchased. Initially, I remember being enrolled in a good school. It was bright and fun. That doesn't last as I was soon enrolled in a private school where a foreign language and computers were required for first grade students. The place required a dress code and was cold. It was probably one of the worst environments for a child to be in because I only remembered being scared there. The walls were bare red bricks for the most part. The daycare had more in common with the bare metal buildings at the fair grounds. It was like a large hanger with what seemed like army surplus cots in rows. You laid down until someone come got you when you're parents arrived. The food service was like a soup kitchen.
This soon became worse as things got bad between my mother and her husband. I recall my sister being there and my mother telling us to hide. We ran for mom's bed room and crawled under the head board of the water bed crying in fear. This soon gave way to memories of my grandfather coming to our rescue. This was after step-dad had vandalized the apartment even destroying most of her clothes. I recalling being in the truck watching my grandfather who was an old man at the time but still an opposing individual. He slapped the keys from the hand of a soon to be ex dad.
I remember the trip back to the only home I knew as a child which was that of my maternal grandparents. The only reason I remember the trip was because a blue, round pillow that I had used nearly every night to cry into was packed lightly and blew out of the truck bed while traveling down the highway. This pillow had been the only source of comfort while in Tulsa and it was now gone. I lived with my grandparents after no more than six months and it was uneventful.
My only other memory of her afterwards was actually caught in pictures. I was living with my grandparents and "Laser Tag" had just come out and I got a set for my birthday. I immediately put on the equipment over my pajamas and called my mom to tell her the good news. She accused me of only calling when I wanted money and during her barrage I broke out crying. It was about this time someone came around the door snapping a picture of me noticing afterwards the streams of tears. I'm not sure if this picture still exists.
I have almost no memories of my real father from early childhood. At nearly 11, I was told that I would have to stay with my mom during the summer because the judge wouldn't like it if I was living at my grandparents. I remember being instructed to tell the judge that "I wanted to live with my mom" because grandma wasn't a valid answer. I remember waiting outside the court room with my grandmother in case the judge wanted to talk with me. Thankfully, that moment never came. It did give me the first clear memory of my biological dad as he was being hauled out of the court in hand cuffs. Prior to this, my only memories of him was during a birthday where he was sitting on a couch as I unwrapped a toy semi-truck and visiting him in a white house that had some fruiting tree outside the window. (I still have that semi-truck which I gave to my son)
Oddly again, my sister spent the previous summer with my mom and I was told the stories from my sister about the wonderful house my mom kept; complete with pictures of her pet bird comically being put outside during the summer to air out. Looking back, I think that this was done on purpose to remove any objection I would have to being there. My mother's previous comments and actions shows she didn't care much for my sister. This is probably because I was the first born male in a family of girls which gave me a special standing with my grandfather. This seemed to be confirmed as I was apparently used as a bargaining chip. Her new home was a trailer and I remember begging my grandparents to come get me during the first storm because of how the trailer swayed in the wind.
The first year at this trailer started the summer before my 5th grade year and wasn't so bad as I often came back to my grandparents for weekends. I spent most of my time outside with a few local kids or down at the ponds fishing. I never ate the fish. Usually I would start with a piece of lunch meat. I would use the fish I caught as bait so I could go all day. (Turtles made the best bait.) This did not last long, as my mom was soon going to bars what seemed every night with her cousin. I was left in the care of the cousin's delinquent older kid who was heavy into skateboarding and smoking. Naturally, I used him as a role model and soon had long hair, smoking, and a skateboard.
I remember he had built a make shift ramp to practice tricks. We would spend late nights during the summer laying out on this ramp smoking cigarettes. Even though I had severe asthma as a child, the cigarettes seemed to help more than hurt. I never really learned to skate well despite having skinned knees many times.
I was by no means a popular kid. I had very few friends. There are only two that I recall. I only mention these two because they are the only ones I really had contact with outside of school. The first lived down the street from my grandparents and we played all the time. When I moved in with my mom, that friendship was lost. The second was a kid I had known since kindergarten and at school we were inseparable. We occasionally played outside of school.
My 5th grade year was probably one of the more difficult years I can remember. I was having trouble adapting with the problems at home and by then I was being bullied by other kids. I remember two kids specifically who gave me the most trouble. One of these kids was extremely fat for his age and the other seemed to be extremely homophobic although at the urinals he was constantly trying to catch a peak of your junk. The fat one constantly hit and pushed me around. The other was mainly verbal until it climaxed into him slamming my head into the walls at school. I never fought back because I was always told I would get in more trouble at home. I had forgotten about most of this until I enrolled my kids at the same school.
I took a lot of this out on my school friend and started to gain a lot of weight. About half way through the school year, I had burned the bridge with my last friend as I had become the bully. Unknown to me at the time, the friend's parents divorced at about the same time and moved away. I was alone and devastated even though I had been a complete jerk.
I started my 6th grade year at a new school in a new town with no friends. We had moved to an apartment complex behind my new school. The school was merely a walk across a large field from the apartment. I spent a lot of time in this field setting off model rockets. I think we only spent a few winter months there.
At this time, my mom was with someone new who used to have dreams of being a professional football player. I suspect he had a lot to do with me being required to play for the school team. Perhaps in an attempt to get new friends and to lose weight. Most of the team had come up together from pee-wee with the coach. I was banished to second string which never got to play, regardless of their skill, unless the first string had been injured. In fact, I only recall being able to play during a game once. My mother never attended my practices and rarely any games. Her boyfriend was there nearly every time I wore the uniform. I was never fully accepted by the other kids which seem only to drive me further into isolation. The benefit was I dropped a lot of weight but still thick.
I believe it was at this time I had met my new best friend in a computer programming class. I think I joined the class because I recalled my confusing experience with computers in Tulsa and was curious to learn more. I didn't really become strong friends with him until later.
We soon moved into the apartment complex ran by the boyfriends parents at the beginning on my 7th grade year. It was a large complex and I did play on occasion with kids that lived there. One was a small thing that always wore shorts no matter what the weather was like. The other was probably your typical nerd who spent more time making model airplanes than playing with friends.
I probably spent most of my time riding my bike around the complex and the neighboring houses. I can even remember some of the horrible bike wrecks I had. One specifically, was down a hill and I clipped a man hole cover with the front tire. I went sliding on my stomach as the bike did a somersault over my head landing a few inches from my nose. With a few new scraps I dusted myself off and I was back on the road.
As a pretend family, we visited almost every state park in Oklahoma. I remember the time at Red Rock canyon and stopping along the road since the adults were tired to continue driving. We had a pop-up camper and it rained all night. I only remember because I spent the night soaked in rain water since the camper was second hand and in poor repair.
I vaguely remember digging for salt crystals in the salt lake and robbers cave. I clearly remember going to Turner falls. I spent most of the time riding down the river on a raft. By the time we came home, I was so terribly sunburned that I had blisters on my back and shoulders. I remember the miserable week afterwards because I was unable to move and kept myself bathed in lotion constantly. Looking back, I probably belonged in a burn unit.
Toward the end of my 7th year, we moved into a house that was closer to my new best friend. It was fairly small but it was nice. The old acquaintances from the apartments disappeared as I only saw them at school. It seems odd that friendship as kids seem dependent on if you could see them outside of school. I had a few other friends but I didn't spend a lot of time with them. I do remember spending a large amount of time with an old TRS-80 entering lines of code. I don't recall many of those programs working.
It was also at this time one of my friends was able to get cigarettes. When I spent time with him it was usually to smoke at the local park. This continued on through the 8th grade year although the former football guy was out of the picture. My mother said she had been bored with him and happen to be at the time she found her marriage wasn't valid because the divorce with her ex was never finalized. This started the major decline of my childhood. The time at this house had been one of the easiest times in my life. Sprinkled with liberal visitation at my grandparents during the summer and weekends. My grandparent's house was always home to me. In addition, they had gotten a new Tandy TL2 that I played on all the time. I spent the majority of my time playing civilization on the computer.
He was replaced by a drug addict who first introduced me to the YMCA's gym. It wasn't long until the drug guy went on another bender and was gone. Soon afterwards, my mom met a new guy and we moved outside of town to his house in the country.
This is really where the dark ages began. . .
Thursday, January 31, 2013
"Assault Weapon Ban"
This is my attempt to educate people who are ignorant of guns. Like most people on both sides I have been caught in discussions on the topic. The same old arguments are recycled and the next time someone copy/paste their argument I will just direct them here. This is also an extension of my previous post:
The AR-15 actually stands for "Armalite Rifle" because this is the company that originally produced the design. The rifle has been the most popular rifle sold in the United States since 1963. This is often called an "assault weapon" by anti-gun groups since about 1989. It started in California to expand the definition of "assault rifle" for political purposes. [1] The term "assault weapon" is a made up term that means nothing except in political discussions. A "assault rifle" or "machine gun" refers to a military rifle capable of multiple shots with a single depression of the trigger. According to Army Intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 on page 67 in section III, part A, paragraph 68a, and reads as follows:
Civilians can own an "assault rifle" by registering with the ATF for a federal firearms license (FFL) and a Class 3 tax stamp. The federal government has regulated guns by the tax code. This requires a significant financial investment (Around $800) and months of probing by the government. You will even get a free visit from the ATF where I'm certain they will be interested in all of your personal philosophies. In addition, this also gives the ATF a say in how you store the weapons which is why most gun stores have burglar bars. This process and required paperwork drives most people away from getting a FFL. Another problem is due to the limited supply of weapons the cost of an "assault rifle" is very high in the tens of thousands. This makes any "assault rifle" more valuable than gold by weight.
A fully automatic weapon is difficult to fire with any accuracy because of the recoil and barrel climb. There's also the problem of the barrel overheating. The military doesn't issue full auto weapons for much else than suppressive fire. The average soldier gets a M4A1 or M16A4 which don't even have an option for fully automatic.
What has become known as an "assault weapons" is really a semi-automatic weapon with certain cosmetic features. A semi-automatic is when the trigger is pressed one round is fired, the empty cartridge is ejected, and a new round is chambered. This simple definition would include many pistols, shotguns, and rifles. [2] The images below are all semi-automatic
The anti-gun crowd like Violence Prevention Center and the Brady Campaign has specifically coined the phrase "assault weapon" to confuse the public into thinking these weapons are machine guns used by the military to gather public support for a ban on guns. [3] These groups are extremist and polar opposites of the NRA. If you don't trust what the NRA says then you shouldn't trust the others either because both are extremist.
Their work came to focus in 1994 with the Federal Assault Weapons ban (AWB). They defined "Assault Weapon" as a semi-automatic weapon sharing two or more characteristics such as a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, and pistol grip since an "Assault Rifle" was already illegal. None of these cosmetic features affect the lethality of the gun.
On top of that, "Assault Rifles" only make up 2% of the gun crimes in the United States. [4] History is littered with mad men like Charles Whitman to McVeigh willing to use a variety of methods to kill as many people as possible. In the UCR statistics for 2011 the total number of murders using a rifle of any kind accounted for only 323 murders (2.5%). Blunt objects (hammers/bats) were used 3.9% (496) of the time and personal weapons (feet/hands) 5.7% (728). These statistics show that you are more likely to be murdered by a hammer and twice as likely to be beaten to death by someone's fist. [12] The murder rate has been dropping for the last several decades and rifles aren't the primary weapon used.
Some will point out that most of the murders are done with a gun of some kind. It is true that 67% of all murders are committed with a gun. Remember, we were talking about evil "assault weapons" and not about banning all guns which has become a mantra of the gun control proponents. I can't think of a single person who would claim all murders would stop even if all guns disappeared from the Earth tomorrow. The problem isn't the weapon used to commit the crime and I would challenge anyone to show that people only kill because a gun is available to the attacker. The lack of gun ownership have not lowered the suicide rates in Japan but no one is talking about banning trains. [19]
The goal of the anti-gun crowd is to ban every gun in America and has even been repeatedly said by senators such as Feinstein (D-CA) [9] [22] Moderates have said people like Feinstein are extremist and don't matter but the problem is that Feinstein has single handedly lead the charge against guns in California and has sponsored all the anti-gun legilsation that has been proposed in the USA congress. She has even suggested making a mandatory government buy back. [21] The AWB was passed largely due to her efforts. Bill Clinton, in his memoirs, said this was the most costly political action he took since the democrats lost control of congress and perhaps the 2000 election. What she says matters because it exposes the goals of the anti-gun lobby. It also shows they are willing to sacrifice their careers over a belief.
Aside from giving a legal definition to "assault weapon", the AWB also limited all new magazines to 10 rounds and grandfathered in the existing higher capacity ones. Many of the mass shooters during the AWB just bought more magazines to get around the limitation. In Columbine, 13 (10 round) magazines on Harris and he fired over 96 shots which amounts to 73% of the ammunition he had on hand. (13X10=130 total bullets) In Virginia Tech, 19 (10 round) magazines we found and he fired over 140 shots. These planned attacks didn't seem to have any issues since a majority of the rounds were fired in each instance. It only takes a little practice to learn how to change out a magazine with some speed if you don't care where the empty one falls. This can be done with a revolver and speed loader in a few seconds.
In 1999, the National Institute of Justice released a study showing the "assault weapons" were rarely used in crime and the AWB had no impact on criminal activity. [16] In 2004, a Department of Justice (DOJ) article found that the AWB had too small of an effect to measure reliably since "Assault Weapons" were rarely used in crimes even prior to the AWB. It also stated it was not clear what affect magazine restrictions had on gun attacks if any. [4] In light of this failure it was allowed to expire.
They have been talking about the "gunshow loophole". The theory goes that criminals will go to gun shows to buy their weapons because there is no background check done. This would only be true for private individuals selling their guns. This is an absurd claim to anyone who has gone to a gun show, since most of the sellers are businesses with an FFL (and required to do a background check). The few individuals selling guns take on a liability because if their gun is used in a crime they could be held accountable. What they are proposing is requiring a background check on any private transfer of a firearm. This means that anyone who wants to buy a gun for their child would have to have two background checks performed; one for their child and one for them. It's hard to imagine why there is focus on this area when even the Department of Justice reports that a mere 1.9% of guns used in crime come from gun show or flea market. This is only the location it was bought and not whether a background check was performed. An over whelming majority of 74.6% come from illegal sources or family. (Both are about 40%) [17] The effect of implementing this "universal background check" would be so slight that it would be impossible to measure.
The only other claim by anti-gun proponents is that 40% of guns were purchased by private sales. The source of this rounded figure is a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice based on survey data in 1994 involving 2,568 homes and only 251 answered the question about the guns origin. The first problem is we shouldn't worry so much about where law abiding citizens get their guns but where criminals do. This survey included people who were unsure or couldn't remember if they bought from a licensed dealer. The small survey was done before background checks were required and only measured gun owners perception.
Since Newtown, there have been calls for a new AWB because initial new reports said an AR-15 had been used. Apparently, these initial reports were wrong and an "Assault Weapon" was not used in the shooting but instead was four pistols. [7] Furthermore, Connecticut already has a AWB which didn't prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. The problem is not the gun but the person committing the crime.
Often the response is usually something like, "then why have laws?" Criminals by their very nature do not follow laws and it is possible for a law abiding citizen to go to criminal in a manner of minutes. Laws are general for punishing people for doing bad things and rarely act as a deterrent. You would think since murder is illegal that it would be enough to deter someone from a mass shooting especially since it can carry the death penalty. I have yet to hear anyone argue they didn't know murder was illegal. I personally do not kill people because it is immoral. If you are one of those that don't kill because you don't have a gun then please seek help immediately from a qualified psychiatrist.
The NRA has also been taking a lot of heat for suggesting we arm teachers because of the "wild west" or accidents that will then kill our children. These are appeals to emotions and have no basis in any facts. Some Texas counties have been doing this since 2007 with no incidents. [11] If a shooter is in the building then we already have a blood bath. All the people inside can do is be killed while waiting on police to arrive. If these shooters didn't care about their victims being armed then they would go to police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows.
Unless Steven Seagal is available, the only way to stop these attacks is by a gun. Most of these shooters crumble with the slightest resistance by committing suicide or surrendering. [8] At Newtown, the shooter had an unopposed 20 minutes to shoot. Had there been an armed guard, it is possible no life would have been lost at the school. [10] No one is claiming that these are perfect solutions but providing any resistance is better than leaving them unopposed.
The AR-15 is accurate, light weight, easy to maintain, and a low recoil make it good for sports, defense, and hunting [8]. Even the Department of Homeland security has stated that it is suitable for personal defense. [20] It was even used in this manner during the LA riots. The bullet it uses is popular and used in many other rifles. Feinsteins recent ban would affect the AR-15 and provide an exception for the mini-14 which uses the exact bullet. Anyone claiming otherwise simply refuses to learn about guns because I have yet to hear an argument that can give a good reason and didn't resort to "so everyone should have nuclear bombs?" Bombs can't be used for hunting or personal defense and no one is advocating making them legal. Even if they were legal, they cost millions of dollars and extensive knowledge to build and operate. If you could afford one, then you would probably kill yourself and all your neighbors first. Are you seriously going to wipe out a city to stop a home invasion? We call those people terrorist and they are worse than mass killers because we invade countries to get them.
The actual test of a weapon was established in US vs. Miller where the supreme court decided that the 2nd amendment protected any weapon that could be used in common defense or ordinary military equipment. This would seem to indicate that more weapons should be available to the citizens not less. In fact, in the past weapons were available by mail order and hardware store while at the same time we had less school shootings.
So do I care about saving lives? Of course but there are many other ways to work this problem. Ending the failed drug policy in the USA could be a way to fight violence because most of those murders are gang related and probably fueled by the drug trade. [13]
Another way would be to change how to treat the shooters in the media. After each event the media reports on every aspect of the life of the person. They report on the shooter more than even the victims. If you don't believe this then simply name as many shooters as you can in 10 seconds. If you remember even one person then it is just sad. Who was the person that tackled Gifford's shooter in Arizona? Who confronted and deterred the Oregon mall shooter? [15] Who prevented the shooting at a movie theater in San Antonio? The facts are the media doesn't cover these hero's in any detail and no one remembers their name. Most of those heros had stories with a couples of sentences or were omitted completely. The stories on the Newtown shooter was paginated.
(Revision 2) Sources:
1. http://saf.org/LawReviews/KobayashiAndOlson.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html
3. http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm
4. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20121114.pdf
5. http://washingtonexaminer.com
6. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/harris-perry-ending-drug-war-may-be-best
7. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk&feature=youtu.be&t=5m1s
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTB_aXTCUs
10. http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899
11. http://www.ncnewsonline.com/topstories/x1303497676/Texas-town-letting-teachers-carry-guns
12. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011
13. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/harris-perry-ending
14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec
15. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
16. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
17. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt
18. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
19. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/06/world/kunitachi-city-journal
20. https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form
21. http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democratic-Senators-Respond-to-NRA/10737436852-1/
22. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7380236n
The AR-15 actually stands for "Armalite Rifle" because this is the company that originally produced the design. The rifle has been the most popular rifle sold in the United States since 1963. This is often called an "assault weapon" by anti-gun groups since about 1989. It started in California to expand the definition of "assault rifle" for political purposes. [1] The term "assault weapon" is a made up term that means nothing except in political discussions. A "assault rifle" or "machine gun" refers to a military rifle capable of multiple shots with a single depression of the trigger. According to Army Intelligence document FSTC-CW-07-03-70 on page 67 in section III, part A, paragraph 68a, and reads as follows:
"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachinegun and rifle cartridges."The paragraph concludes by adding:
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."These type of weapons have been banned since 1934 by the "National Firearms Act" that was later amended by The "Gun Control Act" in 1968 to modernize the language. The last change occurred in 1986, the "Firearms Owners Protection Act" banned new "assault rifles" to the civilian market and restricted ownership to existing weapons registered prior to 1986. This effectively banned the import of new weapons as well.
Civilians can own an "assault rifle" by registering with the ATF for a federal firearms license (FFL) and a Class 3 tax stamp. The federal government has regulated guns by the tax code. This requires a significant financial investment (Around $800) and months of probing by the government. You will even get a free visit from the ATF where I'm certain they will be interested in all of your personal philosophies. In addition, this also gives the ATF a say in how you store the weapons which is why most gun stores have burglar bars. This process and required paperwork drives most people away from getting a FFL. Another problem is due to the limited supply of weapons the cost of an "assault rifle" is very high in the tens of thousands. This makes any "assault rifle" more valuable than gold by weight.
A fully automatic weapon is difficult to fire with any accuracy because of the recoil and barrel climb. There's also the problem of the barrel overheating. The military doesn't issue full auto weapons for much else than suppressive fire. The average soldier gets a M4A1 or M16A4 which don't even have an option for fully automatic.
What has become known as an "assault weapons" is really a semi-automatic weapon with certain cosmetic features. A semi-automatic is when the trigger is pressed one round is fired, the empty cartridge is ejected, and a new round is chambered. This simple definition would include many pistols, shotguns, and rifles. [2] The images below are all semi-automatic
Their work came to focus in 1994 with the Federal Assault Weapons ban (AWB). They defined "Assault Weapon" as a semi-automatic weapon sharing two or more characteristics such as a collapsible stock, flash suppressor, bayonet mount, and pistol grip since an "Assault Rifle" was already illegal. None of these cosmetic features affect the lethality of the gun.
On top of that, "Assault Rifles" only make up 2% of the gun crimes in the United States. [4] History is littered with mad men like Charles Whitman to McVeigh willing to use a variety of methods to kill as many people as possible. In the UCR statistics for 2011 the total number of murders using a rifle of any kind accounted for only 323 murders (2.5%). Blunt objects (hammers/bats) were used 3.9% (496) of the time and personal weapons (feet/hands) 5.7% (728). These statistics show that you are more likely to be murdered by a hammer and twice as likely to be beaten to death by someone's fist. [12] The murder rate has been dropping for the last several decades and rifles aren't the primary weapon used.
Some will point out that most of the murders are done with a gun of some kind. It is true that 67% of all murders are committed with a gun. Remember, we were talking about evil "assault weapons" and not about banning all guns which has become a mantra of the gun control proponents. I can't think of a single person who would claim all murders would stop even if all guns disappeared from the Earth tomorrow. The problem isn't the weapon used to commit the crime and I would challenge anyone to show that people only kill because a gun is available to the attacker. The lack of gun ownership have not lowered the suicide rates in Japan but no one is talking about banning trains. [19]
The goal of the anti-gun crowd is to ban every gun in America and has even been repeatedly said by senators such as Feinstein (D-CA) [9] [22] Moderates have said people like Feinstein are extremist and don't matter but the problem is that Feinstein has single handedly lead the charge against guns in California and has sponsored all the anti-gun legilsation that has been proposed in the USA congress. She has even suggested making a mandatory government buy back. [21] The AWB was passed largely due to her efforts. Bill Clinton, in his memoirs, said this was the most costly political action he took since the democrats lost control of congress and perhaps the 2000 election. What she says matters because it exposes the goals of the anti-gun lobby. It also shows they are willing to sacrifice their careers over a belief.
Aside from giving a legal definition to "assault weapon", the AWB also limited all new magazines to 10 rounds and grandfathered in the existing higher capacity ones. Many of the mass shooters during the AWB just bought more magazines to get around the limitation. In Columbine, 13 (10 round) magazines on Harris and he fired over 96 shots which amounts to 73% of the ammunition he had on hand. (13X10=130 total bullets) In Virginia Tech, 19 (10 round) magazines we found and he fired over 140 shots. These planned attacks didn't seem to have any issues since a majority of the rounds were fired in each instance. It only takes a little practice to learn how to change out a magazine with some speed if you don't care where the empty one falls. This can be done with a revolver and speed loader in a few seconds.
In 1999, the National Institute of Justice released a study showing the "assault weapons" were rarely used in crime and the AWB had no impact on criminal activity. [16] In 2004, a Department of Justice (DOJ) article found that the AWB had too small of an effect to measure reliably since "Assault Weapons" were rarely used in crimes even prior to the AWB. It also stated it was not clear what affect magazine restrictions had on gun attacks if any. [4] In light of this failure it was allowed to expire.
They have been talking about the "gunshow loophole". The theory goes that criminals will go to gun shows to buy their weapons because there is no background check done. This would only be true for private individuals selling their guns. This is an absurd claim to anyone who has gone to a gun show, since most of the sellers are businesses with an FFL (and required to do a background check). The few individuals selling guns take on a liability because if their gun is used in a crime they could be held accountable. What they are proposing is requiring a background check on any private transfer of a firearm. This means that anyone who wants to buy a gun for their child would have to have two background checks performed; one for their child and one for them. It's hard to imagine why there is focus on this area when even the Department of Justice reports that a mere 1.9% of guns used in crime come from gun show or flea market. This is only the location it was bought and not whether a background check was performed. An over whelming majority of 74.6% come from illegal sources or family. (Both are about 40%) [17] The effect of implementing this "universal background check" would be so slight that it would be impossible to measure.
The only other claim by anti-gun proponents is that 40% of guns were purchased by private sales. The source of this rounded figure is a 1997 study done by the National Institute of Justice based on survey data in 1994 involving 2,568 homes and only 251 answered the question about the guns origin. The first problem is we shouldn't worry so much about where law abiding citizens get their guns but where criminals do. This survey included people who were unsure or couldn't remember if they bought from a licensed dealer. The small survey was done before background checks were required and only measured gun owners perception.
Since Newtown, there have been calls for a new AWB because initial new reports said an AR-15 had been used. Apparently, these initial reports were wrong and an "Assault Weapon" was not used in the shooting but instead was four pistols. [7] Furthermore, Connecticut already has a AWB which didn't prevent the crime from occurring in the first place. The problem is not the gun but the person committing the crime.
Often the response is usually something like, "then why have laws?" Criminals by their very nature do not follow laws and it is possible for a law abiding citizen to go to criminal in a manner of minutes. Laws are general for punishing people for doing bad things and rarely act as a deterrent. You would think since murder is illegal that it would be enough to deter someone from a mass shooting especially since it can carry the death penalty. I have yet to hear anyone argue they didn't know murder was illegal. I personally do not kill people because it is immoral. If you are one of those that don't kill because you don't have a gun then please seek help immediately from a qualified psychiatrist.
The NRA has also been taking a lot of heat for suggesting we arm teachers because of the "wild west" or accidents that will then kill our children. These are appeals to emotions and have no basis in any facts. Some Texas counties have been doing this since 2007 with no incidents. [11] If a shooter is in the building then we already have a blood bath. All the people inside can do is be killed while waiting on police to arrive. If these shooters didn't care about their victims being armed then they would go to police stations, shooting ranges, or gun shows.
Unless Steven Seagal is available, the only way to stop these attacks is by a gun. Most of these shooters crumble with the slightest resistance by committing suicide or surrendering. [8] At Newtown, the shooter had an unopposed 20 minutes to shoot. Had there been an armed guard, it is possible no life would have been lost at the school. [10] No one is claiming that these are perfect solutions but providing any resistance is better than leaving them unopposed.
The AR-15 is accurate, light weight, easy to maintain, and a low recoil make it good for sports, defense, and hunting [8]. Even the Department of Homeland security has stated that it is suitable for personal defense. [20] It was even used in this manner during the LA riots. The bullet it uses is popular and used in many other rifles. Feinsteins recent ban would affect the AR-15 and provide an exception for the mini-14 which uses the exact bullet. Anyone claiming otherwise simply refuses to learn about guns because I have yet to hear an argument that can give a good reason and didn't resort to "so everyone should have nuclear bombs?" Bombs can't be used for hunting or personal defense and no one is advocating making them legal. Even if they were legal, they cost millions of dollars and extensive knowledge to build and operate. If you could afford one, then you would probably kill yourself and all your neighbors first. Are you seriously going to wipe out a city to stop a home invasion? We call those people terrorist and they are worse than mass killers because we invade countries to get them.
The actual test of a weapon was established in US vs. Miller where the supreme court decided that the 2nd amendment protected any weapon that could be used in common defense or ordinary military equipment. This would seem to indicate that more weapons should be available to the citizens not less. In fact, in the past weapons were available by mail order and hardware store while at the same time we had less school shootings.
So do I care about saving lives? Of course but there are many other ways to work this problem. Ending the failed drug policy in the USA could be a way to fight violence because most of those murders are gang related and probably fueled by the drug trade. [13]
Another way would be to change how to treat the shooters in the media. After each event the media reports on every aspect of the life of the person. They report on the shooter more than even the victims. If you don't believe this then simply name as many shooters as you can in 10 seconds. If you remember even one person then it is just sad. Who was the person that tackled Gifford's shooter in Arizona? Who confronted and deterred the Oregon mall shooter? [15] Who prevented the shooting at a movie theater in San Antonio? The facts are the media doesn't cover these hero's in any detail and no one remembers their name. Most of those heros had stories with a couples of sentences or were omitted completely. The stories on the Newtown shooter was paginated.
(Revision 2) Sources:
1. http://saf.org/LawReviews/KobayashiAndOlson.htm
2. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323723104578185271857424036.html
3. http://www.vpc.org/studies/awacont.htm
4. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20121114.pdf
5. http://washingtonexaminer.com
6. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/harris-perry-ending-drug-war-may-be-best
7. http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/50208495#50208495
8. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6swSM_nqCnk&feature=youtu.be&t=5m1s
9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDTB_aXTCUs
10. http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9025899
11. http://www.ncnewsonline.com/topstories/x1303497676/Texas-town-letting-teachers-carry-guns
12. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011
13. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/13/harris-perry-ending
14. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec
15. http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
16. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf
17. http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/fuo.txt
18. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
19. http://www.nytimes.com/2000/06/06/world/kunitachi-city-journal
20. https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form
21. http://www.c-span.org/Events/Democratic-Senators-Respond-to-NRA/10737436852-1/
22. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7380236n
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Solar Mecca
Many have been pushing solar panels lately like a magical cure which has been a mainly due to the media reporting on the mecca of solar in Germany. [1] In an attempt to educate people, I will try to explain why most alternative power sources are not viable with current technology. The main problem is due to a lack of storage of energy or commonly known as batteries. This doesn't mean I am against research. On the contrary, I think we should research this and other dependent technologies. I laugh at those who claim some oil company conspiracy without knowing the consequences of their demands.
First, I used all prices and specifications from materials available at Home Depot. [2] I want to make sure that the materials I use are generally available to the public. Outside of a retail store, the only question becomes price. This is the cheapest you could install it unless you can buy wholesale because I did not estimate labor and assumed you did everything yourself.
Efficiency
The efficiency limit of silicon based solar panels is theoretically about 29% due to the Shockley–Queisser limit. [7] In simple terms, this is talking about how much of the energy received from the sun (1000 m/w2) can be converted into usable electrical energy. You can push the limit up to 86% using multilayer solar panels. [8] The most widely available panels are about 18% efficient and the best are about 22% efficient. The better the panel the higher the price. This probably also assumes that conversion is taking place at the equator on a clear sunny day. (The further north you go the less energy is received from the sun.)
Recently, new records were set for 18.7% efficiency. [9]
The Project
The next problem is how much space do you need? I will use an example project I heard about recently to illustrate the use of solar panels. The idea is using shipping containers like the one above and converting it into a green house. The problem is the container is completely closed off from the environment so the light and water must be supplied. We will attempt to use alternative energy sources to keep the environmental impact to a minimum. The idea is to convert this into a green house with as few modifications as possible so that it can be massed produced. (After all if you cut 90% of the container away then why not just build a steal frame instead of using a closed box producing a lot of waste?)
The container dimensions is about 20 X 8 (feet) with a total square footage of 160. The main idea here is to demonstrate solar panels and not refine the design of a garden in a surplus steel box.
On the inside, we mount three shelves on both sides for hydroponics. We would end up with four (double bulb) light fixtures per row and a total of 24 bulbs. (4 X 3 X 2) (See picture above) For our demonstration, we will assume these are 40 Watt Bulbs and 120V.
That equals 960 watts per hour (40 X 24). We will use a 390W fixed solar panel at a cost of $969 each. These panels produce about 3 amps with dimensions of 6 X 4 (feet) using 24 square feet each. This means we need at least three solar panels just to power our bulbs using a total of 72 square feet. The panels needed to power only our bulbs would cover half of the container's roof.
40 / 120 = .33 (amp per bulb)
.33 * 24 = 8 (total amps)
8 / 3.25 = 2.46 (panels needed)
3 X 969 = $2,907 (cost)
This assumes perfect conditions, where the sun is always directly overhead and never a cloud in the sky at the equator. The reason is that solar panels are dependent on the sun. (duh) We know the sun's angel changes as the day passes. A fixed panel doesn't produce as much power if the panel faces directly up and the sun is at a 30% angel from the horizon. The power production suffers even more if the sky is cloudy. You can help this by installing motorized panels that adjust their tilt so they are always facing the sun. These panels are really expensive and consume power by themselves. So you would spend more money and require additional panels.
The amount of sun light also depends on where you live and what season it is. You get less sun light for shorter periods of time during the winter months. On average, you would probably only have 8 hours of usable day light to run the garden. I hope your plants can survive in those conditions because not all plants have the same environmental needs.
The other major problem is weather. In the central parts of the USA have severe weather. High winds, hail, and tornado's could cost you $3,000 every spring by damaging your solar panels. Solar panels also lose efficiency over time at a rate of .5% a year because the material degrades.
On the Home
You can install panels on your home and reduce your electric utility use. This will save you money. Such a kit is available for the do it yourself group for about $10,000 consuming about 350 square feet and producing an average of 5,400 kwh per year. For comparison, I personally use that in about 3 months. On average, I pay about $250 per month for electricity. Assuming perfect sun conditions, I would get 3 months for free and it would take 14 years to break even on my investment. You can reduced the time to break even by cashing in some government subsidies which makes everyone pay for your bad investment.
In a Power Plant
The largest solar power plant in the USA is Nellis in Nevada. This facility takes up 140 acres and produces about 14 Mega Watts at maximum capacity. To replace a single 140 mw coal fired power plant would require ten times the cost and space using 2.18 square miles of land. To replace the total power generated in the United States would require more land than the state of Maryland occupies and that doesn't consider the space needed for transmission lines. It would require 14,000 square miles where Maryland only has about 12,000.
It would not even do away with the fossil fuel power plants since they would remain as a back up power source. The reason why is most conventional power plants boil water and use the steam in turbines to generate the power. If the plant were completely turned off then there would be a delay from the time the pilot was lit and the volts started to flow out. This would lead to blackouts and general interruption in service when a cloud rolls in the area until the sky was clear or the back up power plants came online. For this reason, installing solar panels does not reduce CO2 emissions because we can not store the power we generate on an industrial scale.
Germany
Germany has emerged as the leader in solar panels. The biggest problem with solar panels is if there's no sun then there is no power. In fact, for the first part of 2012 Germany's solar panels didn't produced much because the country had cloud cover for several weeks in row which is often the case in the winter.
Energy storage methods have not kept up with technology. During the cloudy days, Germany has to import most of their electricity from conventional power plants in neighboring countries since they no longer have many of their own. At the low point, they had to restart old oil fired power plants to prevent an interruption in service. No matter how many solar plants Germany builds, they will always be dependent on conventional sources when the sun is unavailable due to weather or the spin of the Earth. Simply put, you have to build two power systems; solar and conventional. The conventional plants must always be on stand by to fill gaps in supply. This isn't just a switch you can flip. The power plants must be running even when not in use.
Since solar panels are so expensive the German government provide subsidies to businesses and individuals to install the panels to the tune of $10 billion in 2011. This amounted to the most unreliable 3% of power supply. None of the private owners can automatically switch between utility and their panels because without a storage method it isn't possible to send excess power back to the grid. It is expensive to dispose of unused power on the grid. In the end, Germany pays the second highest rates for power in Europe. The highest rates are paid by citizens of Denmark who is the leader in wind energy. They have created a government supported sector that will end up costing over $200 billion Euros in the next 20 years.
The cost of solar panels have dropped in Germany but this is misleading. The drop in expense is due to labor cost and not materials. Companies in Germany are really good at installing new panels. The German manufacturing sector has been unable to keep up with demand and so most of the panels come from countries like China.
The proponents claim that all the solar panels can generate 20 Gw but this can only occur if every solar panel has perfect environmental conditions which don't occur outside of a laboratory. As a result, Germany has cut subsidies for solar panels.
Sources:
First, I used all prices and specifications from materials available at Home Depot. [2] I want to make sure that the materials I use are generally available to the public. Outside of a retail store, the only question becomes price. This is the cheapest you could install it unless you can buy wholesale because I did not estimate labor and assumed you did everything yourself.
Efficiency
The efficiency limit of silicon based solar panels is theoretically about 29% due to the Shockley–Queisser limit. [7] In simple terms, this is talking about how much of the energy received from the sun (1000 m/w2) can be converted into usable electrical energy. You can push the limit up to 86% using multilayer solar panels. [8] The most widely available panels are about 18% efficient and the best are about 22% efficient. The better the panel the higher the price. This probably also assumes that conversion is taking place at the equator on a clear sunny day. (The further north you go the less energy is received from the sun.)
Recently, new records were set for 18.7% efficiency. [9]
The Project
The next problem is how much space do you need? I will use an example project I heard about recently to illustrate the use of solar panels. The idea is using shipping containers like the one above and converting it into a green house. The problem is the container is completely closed off from the environment so the light and water must be supplied. We will attempt to use alternative energy sources to keep the environmental impact to a minimum. The idea is to convert this into a green house with as few modifications as possible so that it can be massed produced. (After all if you cut 90% of the container away then why not just build a steal frame instead of using a closed box producing a lot of waste?)
The container dimensions is about 20 X 8 (feet) with a total square footage of 160. The main idea here is to demonstrate solar panels and not refine the design of a garden in a surplus steel box.
On the inside, we mount three shelves on both sides for hydroponics. We would end up with four (double bulb) light fixtures per row and a total of 24 bulbs. (4 X 3 X 2) (See picture above) For our demonstration, we will assume these are 40 Watt Bulbs and 120V.
That equals 960 watts per hour (40 X 24). We will use a 390W fixed solar panel at a cost of $969 each. These panels produce about 3 amps with dimensions of 6 X 4 (feet) using 24 square feet each. This means we need at least three solar panels just to power our bulbs using a total of 72 square feet. The panels needed to power only our bulbs would cover half of the container's roof.
40 / 120 = .33 (amp per bulb)
.33 * 24 = 8 (total amps)
8 / 3.25 = 2.46 (panels needed)
3 X 969 = $2,907 (cost)
This assumes perfect conditions, where the sun is always directly overhead and never a cloud in the sky at the equator. The reason is that solar panels are dependent on the sun. (duh) We know the sun's angel changes as the day passes. A fixed panel doesn't produce as much power if the panel faces directly up and the sun is at a 30% angel from the horizon. The power production suffers even more if the sky is cloudy. You can help this by installing motorized panels that adjust their tilt so they are always facing the sun. These panels are really expensive and consume power by themselves. So you would spend more money and require additional panels.
The amount of sun light also depends on where you live and what season it is. You get less sun light for shorter periods of time during the winter months. On average, you would probably only have 8 hours of usable day light to run the garden. I hope your plants can survive in those conditions because not all plants have the same environmental needs.
The other major problem is weather. In the central parts of the USA have severe weather. High winds, hail, and tornado's could cost you $3,000 every spring by damaging your solar panels. Solar panels also lose efficiency over time at a rate of .5% a year because the material degrades.
On the Home
You can install panels on your home and reduce your electric utility use. This will save you money. Such a kit is available for the do it yourself group for about $10,000 consuming about 350 square feet and producing an average of 5,400 kwh per year. For comparison, I personally use that in about 3 months. On average, I pay about $250 per month for electricity. Assuming perfect sun conditions, I would get 3 months for free and it would take 14 years to break even on my investment. You can reduced the time to break even by cashing in some government subsidies which makes everyone pay for your bad investment.
In a Power Plant
The largest solar power plant in the USA is Nellis in Nevada. This facility takes up 140 acres and produces about 14 Mega Watts at maximum capacity. To replace a single 140 mw coal fired power plant would require ten times the cost and space using 2.18 square miles of land. To replace the total power generated in the United States would require more land than the state of Maryland occupies and that doesn't consider the space needed for transmission lines. It would require 14,000 square miles where Maryland only has about 12,000.
It would not even do away with the fossil fuel power plants since they would remain as a back up power source. The reason why is most conventional power plants boil water and use the steam in turbines to generate the power. If the plant were completely turned off then there would be a delay from the time the pilot was lit and the volts started to flow out. This would lead to blackouts and general interruption in service when a cloud rolls in the area until the sky was clear or the back up power plants came online. For this reason, installing solar panels does not reduce CO2 emissions because we can not store the power we generate on an industrial scale.
Germany
Germany has emerged as the leader in solar panels. The biggest problem with solar panels is if there's no sun then there is no power. In fact, for the first part of 2012 Germany's solar panels didn't produced much because the country had cloud cover for several weeks in row which is often the case in the winter.
Energy storage methods have not kept up with technology. During the cloudy days, Germany has to import most of their electricity from conventional power plants in neighboring countries since they no longer have many of their own. At the low point, they had to restart old oil fired power plants to prevent an interruption in service. No matter how many solar plants Germany builds, they will always be dependent on conventional sources when the sun is unavailable due to weather or the spin of the Earth. Simply put, you have to build two power systems; solar and conventional. The conventional plants must always be on stand by to fill gaps in supply. This isn't just a switch you can flip. The power plants must be running even when not in use.
Since solar panels are so expensive the German government provide subsidies to businesses and individuals to install the panels to the tune of $10 billion in 2011. This amounted to the most unreliable 3% of power supply. None of the private owners can automatically switch between utility and their panels because without a storage method it isn't possible to send excess power back to the grid. It is expensive to dispose of unused power on the grid. In the end, Germany pays the second highest rates for power in Europe. The highest rates are paid by citizens of Denmark who is the leader in wind energy. They have created a government supported sector that will end up costing over $200 billion Euros in the next 20 years.
The cost of solar panels have dropped in Germany but this is misleading. The drop in expense is due to labor cost and not materials. Companies in Germany are really good at installing new panels. The German manufacturing sector has been unable to keep up with demand and so most of the panels come from countries like China.
The proponents claim that all the solar panels can generate 20 Gw but this can only occur if every solar panel has perfect environmental conditions which don't occur outside of a laboratory. As a result, Germany has cut subsidies for solar panels.
Sources:
- http://www.usatoday.com/
- http://www.homedepot.com
- http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/
- http://www.hawaiireporter.com/germanys-solar-failure
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellis_Solar_Power_Plant
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States
- http://jap.aip.org/resource/1/japiau/v32/i3/p510_s1
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shockley
- http://phys.org/news/2011-05-efficiency-percent-flexible-cigs-solar.html
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Propaganda on guns in Australia
The more I talk with people about guns (especially those on the left), the more I am accused of supporting extreme points of view simply because I a pro-gun rights. My stance is quite simple. It is a right just like the freedom of speech. (Washington DC v. Heller) I defend it just as I do the freedom of speech or religion. Gun control has failed to stop crime because it doesn't address the cause of the problem which is the lack of value for human life. People don't kill because it is perceived to be easy. I should also mention that "Assault rifle" is clearly defined by the military as a fully automatic rifle which has been banned in the United States since 1968. This means when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until the magazine is empty. The extreme left use this as a vague term to mean anything that looks scary. In fact, no two people have given the same definition. (Despite being attacked for asking them to define the term) I will address this more in a later post.
The latest propaganda is from the NY Times expressing what a success Australia's voluntary 1996 buy back program was which was really a failure that even anti-gun groups in Australia despise.
There's articles like this one which is hypocritical and a perfect example of the line of thinking the anti-gun crowds have. It cherry picks crimes that only deal with guns and ignores everything else. The weapon or method doesn't matter because murder and violence are still bad regardless if they crime was performed with a gun or not.
It specifically says that firearm suicides have fallen as a result of the ban which is the specific type of "correlation is causation" argument they accuse the NRA of. I will address this claim later in more detail.
Their next claim is that homicide rates are different between the two countries but it doesn't show how banning guns turned Australia from a "wild west" shoot out to a peaceful utopia. Not only do they fail to show any such trend in Australia, but they fail to show the actual cause for the difference in rates which could be any factor in the USA like a failed drug policy, lack of education, lack of healthcare, or too much religion.
The last statistic they mention is a quote from the Wall Street Journal [10] about how the trend of sexual assaults and violent crimes has gone up. The Wall Street Journal never claimed the gun laws caused any trend. In fact, they state the opposite that strict gun laws have not made people safer which is the claim made by those pushing for such laws. They counter by talking about the types of weapons used as if that was relevant when talking about overall trends. They are attacking the Wall Street Journal for a claim they didn't make.
Their last discussion is since gun laws have had no impact then that doesn't mean gun control fails. Actually it does. If you can't claim the gun laws have caused Australia's upward violent crime trend then you also can't claim the opposite somewhere else. We have plenty of information about gun control in the United States that show gun laws have no measurable impact on crime. [7] This level of cognitive dissidence is what makes having an honest discussion impossible.
Obviously the two countries are nothing alike. Australia has never had a "right to bear arms" like the United States and most Australian states have had restrictive gun laws since the 1930s. (Although some restrictions were relaxed so they could compete in the Olympics.) Since the late 80's most citizens had to first obtain a license to own a firearm.
Australia buyback scheme in 1996 was a complete failure as a method to prevent crime. It was implemented as a knee jerk reaction to a mass shooting and intended to remove guns from the population. The issue was that law required compensation for property taken by the government. It was completely voluntary and only about 25% of the gun owners participated with a price tag of 21 Million [1]. It was not a ban as some would have you think and this was despite the fact the killer in Port Arthur said bought his guns illegally without a permit. [3] New restrictions won't stop killings which seems to be the goal. This doesn't mean laws are worthless. Laws are meant to deter and punish bad behavior, not stop it. If laws were effective at deterring crime then there would be no murders or drug trade anywhere.
The buy back in 1996 was for specifically for semi-automatic rifles which in the United States would include many rifles used for hunting and not scary "Assault Rifles". The left's vague definition of "Assault rifle" accounted for about 3% of the rifles. The majority were simple .22 LR rifles. [2] The buy back also didn't stop the incident in 2002 where a two students were shot.
The 2002 incident also lead to more restrictions on hand guns. This is where the "slippery slope" argument could be made. The failure of the 1996 scheme to prevent crime was not seen as a failure of that policy but that more restrictions were needed. This implies either that only crimes committed with guns are bad or people only commit crimes because guns are available.
The reason why this becomes a "slippery slope" is quite simple. The new restrictions always target the type of weapon used. If someone uses a rifle then rifles will be banned. Then if someone uses a handgun then handguns will be banned. Then if shotguns are used, they will be banned. The target of the restrictions changes depending on what the current scape goat is.
I'm sure the next assertion by the left is that the gun law changes some how made Australia safer. This simply isn't the case either. Australia has never had a major violent crime problem and homicides have been in decline for decades prior to 1996.
Five years after the ban, a policy analysis found that violent crime in Australia has gone up over 40% [4]. Later research has found that gun ownership has increased in some states and the gun restrictions have had no impact on crime rates. [5] Some claim that suicides (by gun) have dropped as a result but they didn't look at other methods of suicide in those studies. At best, the suicide rate was not impacted by the laws in 1996 even though suicides increased in 1997. [6] [11]
I do not claim that more guns would mean less crime although some studies have shown exactly that effect. [8] The fact is that gun control has failed to produce any measurable result on crime in the past. Guns are the favorite scape goat when bad things happen. [9] We should stop wasting time on failed policies and look for the real cause of the violence.
In my opinion, improving healthcare and fixing the failed drug policies.
Source:
1. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/31/1075340889254.html
2. http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf
3. http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant
4. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
5. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall
6. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf
7. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20121114.pdf
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bias_Against_Guns
10. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
11. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/a61b65ae88ebf976ca256def00724cde
(Revision 3)
The latest propaganda is from the NY Times expressing what a success Australia's voluntary 1996 buy back program was which was really a failure that even anti-gun groups in Australia despise.
There's articles like this one which is hypocritical and a perfect example of the line of thinking the anti-gun crowds have. It cherry picks crimes that only deal with guns and ignores everything else. The weapon or method doesn't matter because murder and violence are still bad regardless if they crime was performed with a gun or not.
It specifically says that firearm suicides have fallen as a result of the ban which is the specific type of "correlation is causation" argument they accuse the NRA of. I will address this claim later in more detail.
Their next claim is that homicide rates are different between the two countries but it doesn't show how banning guns turned Australia from a "wild west" shoot out to a peaceful utopia. Not only do they fail to show any such trend in Australia, but they fail to show the actual cause for the difference in rates which could be any factor in the USA like a failed drug policy, lack of education, lack of healthcare, or too much religion.
The last statistic they mention is a quote from the Wall Street Journal [10] about how the trend of sexual assaults and violent crimes has gone up. The Wall Street Journal never claimed the gun laws caused any trend. In fact, they state the opposite that strict gun laws have not made people safer which is the claim made by those pushing for such laws. They counter by talking about the types of weapons used as if that was relevant when talking about overall trends. They are attacking the Wall Street Journal for a claim they didn't make.
Their last discussion is since gun laws have had no impact then that doesn't mean gun control fails. Actually it does. If you can't claim the gun laws have caused Australia's upward violent crime trend then you also can't claim the opposite somewhere else. We have plenty of information about gun control in the United States that show gun laws have no measurable impact on crime. [7] This level of cognitive dissidence is what makes having an honest discussion impossible.
Obviously the two countries are nothing alike. Australia has never had a "right to bear arms" like the United States and most Australian states have had restrictive gun laws since the 1930s. (Although some restrictions were relaxed so they could compete in the Olympics.) Since the late 80's most citizens had to first obtain a license to own a firearm.
Australia buyback scheme in 1996 was a complete failure as a method to prevent crime. It was implemented as a knee jerk reaction to a mass shooting and intended to remove guns from the population. The issue was that law required compensation for property taken by the government. It was completely voluntary and only about 25% of the gun owners participated with a price tag of 21 Million [1]. It was not a ban as some would have you think and this was despite the fact the killer in Port Arthur said bought his guns illegally without a permit. [3] New restrictions won't stop killings which seems to be the goal. This doesn't mean laws are worthless. Laws are meant to deter and punish bad behavior, not stop it. If laws were effective at deterring crime then there would be no murders or drug trade anywhere.
The buy back in 1996 was for specifically for semi-automatic rifles which in the United States would include many rifles used for hunting and not scary "Assault Rifles". The left's vague definition of "Assault rifle" accounted for about 3% of the rifles. The majority were simple .22 LR rifles. [2] The buy back also didn't stop the incident in 2002 where a two students were shot.
The 2002 incident also lead to more restrictions on hand guns. This is where the "slippery slope" argument could be made. The failure of the 1996 scheme to prevent crime was not seen as a failure of that policy but that more restrictions were needed. This implies either that only crimes committed with guns are bad or people only commit crimes because guns are available.
The reason why this becomes a "slippery slope" is quite simple. The new restrictions always target the type of weapon used. If someone uses a rifle then rifles will be banned. Then if someone uses a handgun then handguns will be banned. Then if shotguns are used, they will be banned. The target of the restrictions changes depending on what the current scape goat is.
I'm sure the next assertion by the left is that the gun law changes some how made Australia safer. This simply isn't the case either. Australia has never had a major violent crime problem and homicides have been in decline for decades prior to 1996.
Five years after the ban, a policy analysis found that violent crime in Australia has gone up over 40% [4]. Later research has found that gun ownership has increased in some states and the gun restrictions have had no impact on crime rates. [5] Some claim that suicides (by gun) have dropped as a result but they didn't look at other methods of suicide in those studies. At best, the suicide rate was not impacted by the laws in 1996 even though suicides increased in 1997. [6] [11]
I do not claim that more guns would mean less crime although some studies have shown exactly that effect. [8] The fact is that gun control has failed to produce any measurable result on crime in the past. Guns are the favorite scape goat when bad things happen. [9] We should stop wasting time on failed policies and look for the real cause of the violence.
In my opinion, improving healthcare and fixing the failed drug policies.
Source:
1. http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/31/1075340889254.html
2. http://www.anao.gov.au/uploads/documents/1997-98_Audit_Report_25.pdf
3. http://loveforlife.com.au/content/07/10/30/transcript-police-interview-martin-bryant
4. http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=17847
5. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall
6. http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/subscriber.nsf
7. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL32842_20121114.pdf
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bias_Against_Guns
10. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html
11. http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/a61b65ae88ebf976ca256def00724cde
(Revision 3)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)