This report is one of the main reasons I have swapped down from .40 to 9mm:
Conversely the 9mm can probably be fired fastest of the common calibers and it had the most rounds fired to get an incapacitation (2.45). The .40 (2.36) and the .45 (2.08) split the difference. … If a person takes an average of 5 seconds to stop after being hit, the defender who shoots a lighter recoiling gun can get more hits in that time period. It could be that fewer rounds would have stopped the attacker (given enough time) but the ability to fire more quickly resulted in more hits being put onto the attacker. It may not have anything to do with the stopping power of the round.
You can’t shoot a fraction of a bullet; 2.45 rounds of 9mm and 2.36 rounds of .40 both round (ha!) up to 3 rounds. Might as well have 15 in the mag instead of 13, and get faster followup hits. Via An Alternate Look at Handgun Stopping Power.
One of my favourite sections of the book was Harford’s discussion of accidents. Most of the problems Harford examines in the book are complex and “loosely coupled”, which allows experimentation with failure. But what if the system is tightly coupled, meaning that failures threaten the survival of the entire system? This concept reminded me of work by Robert May, which undermined the belief that increased network complexity led to stability.
The concept of “normal accidents”, taken from a book of that title by Charles Perrow, is compelling. If a system is complex, things will go wrong. Safety measures that increase complexity can increase the potential for problems. As such, the question changes from “how do we stop accidents” to how do we mitigate their damage when they inevitably occur? This takes us to the concept of decoupling. When applied to the financial system, can financial institutions be decoupled from the broader system so that we can let them fail?
(Emphasis mine.) via Harford’s Adapt: Why Success Always Starts with Failure.
Considering the situation we are in today, the size of government, the level of our debt, the continuous violations of our economic and personal freedoms, free-market advocates should be breathing fire everyday and fight for truly smaller government. This plan isn’t enough.
It doesn’t balance the budget in the next ten years. …
It will spend $4.9 trillion in 2022. … That’s only 13 percent less than the president’s plan.
It focuses on a few villains like high-speed rail and the president’s healthcare law but it fails to propose the elimination of programs, agencies, or departments that should be terminated either because they are the responsibility of the state and local governments or the private sector.
It once again fails to reform Social Security. …
It reneges on sequestration-induced reductions in military spending (it finds the “savings” elsewhere). I think a serious plan would put everything on the table. …
This plan doesn’t close the emergency loopholes. This means that spending cuts brought about by the BCA caps or the Ryan budget can be easily restored by claiming that the spending is an emergency.
On Medicare reform: Why push off urgent reforms for a decade? …
This is a good example of dessert-now-spinach-later policy. In this case, however, older people are the only ones eating desert and younger people are left with the spinach and little prospect of any dessert at all.
The proposal includes no credible plan to force future Congresses to implement its reforms.
… Considering the level of compromises and the amount of watering down that Congress will do once they put their hands on this or any budget, the original document should have been much stronger.
via A Critical Look at the Ryan Plan – By Veronique de Rugy – The Corner – National Review Online.
March 8 was International Women’s Day. On what was suposed to be a celebration of the brilliance, beauty and achievement of the female sex, we [American women] were complaining about our entitlement to insurance coverage for contraception. We let our newly anointed spokesperson Sandra Fluke tell the world that there is a malicious war on women in the United States of America.
In Saudi Arabia, women are forbidden to drive or use public facilities when men are present. If their bodies are not completely covered, they face verbal and physical harassment from the religious police. Jordanian women live in fear of honor killings from their husbands. In Egypt today, women wonder if they will see their hard-fought rights removed when the new constitution is drafted by an Islamist-majority parliament.
On International Women’s Day, these people were victims of the real war on women.
via PLOTT: The real war on women | Yale Daily News.
War is where the enemy decimates your numbers – like, say in China where abortion is killing mostly females.
War is where you are kept from learning – like in most Arab countries, where women have restrictions placed on their education.
War is where your houses are burned, your children taken away into slavery, your goods looted, and you are dragged away in chains.
In the United States, right now, women have preferential treatment – by law – in any company that gets federal funds (which heaven help us, right now, is most of them.) Women live longer than men. Cancers that affect females get more money and more attention than those that affect only men. Women have the right to be sole deciders on abortion, and if they decide to keep the child and make the man pay, he pays. (This by the way is a complete reversal of the “penalty” of sex which used to fall mostly on women.) And if he doesn’t pay, he goes to jail. Divorce courts award custody to mothers overwhelmingly. Oh, and in college campuses, women outnumber men.
If this is war it is war on men. And I’ve had just about enough of everyone who claims otherwise.
Sarah Hoyt, War Is Hell | According To Hoyt.
Big-government advocates will say that as society grows more complex, laws must multiply to keep up. The opposite is true. It is precisely because society is unfathomably complex that laws must be kept simple. No legislature can possibly prescribe rules for the complex network of uncountable transactions and acts of cooperation that take place every day. Not only is the knowledge that would be required to make such a regulatory regime work unavailable to the planners, it doesn’t actually exist, because people don’t know what they will want or do until they confront alternatives in the real world. Any attempt to manage a modern society is more like a bull in a darkened china shop than a finely tuned machine. No wonder the schemes of politicians go awry.
F.A. Hayek wisely said, “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” Another Nobel laureate, James M. Buchanan, put it this way: “Economics is the art of putting parameters on our utopias.”
Barack Obama and his ilk in both parties don’t want parameters on their utopias. They think the world is subject to their manipulation. That idea was debunked years ago.
“With good men and strong governments everything was considered feasible,” the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises wrote. But with the advent of economics, “it was learned that … there is something operative which power and force are unable to alter and to which they must adjust themselves if they hope to achieve success, in precisely the same way as they must taken into account the laws of nature.”
via Complex Societies Need Simple Laws – Reason Magazine.
Gingrich did *not* say the following:
… it is not the job of the President of the United States or in in the skill set of the President of the United States to lead the nation back to or toward God. For starters, a lot of Americans don’t believe in God and don’t want to hear about God. I don’t want a President to lead the nation toward meat-eating or vegetarianism or any of the myriad of other choices we make privately in our day-to-day lives.
More importantly, the President doesn’t know how to lead the nation back to God. He is just as likely to lead the nation away from God. There are people who specialize in Godliness–they are called “the clergy.” Having the President get involved in religion or belief in God inevitably crowds out private efforts or has unintended consequences.
In other words, the right answer is that the President of the United States is not the Messiah or a prophet or even a member of the clergy. Leading the nation back to God is the job of private voluntary acts. The President’s job is to leave those alone.
Via Not the Messiah.
The obvious Rodney Dangerfield joke aside:
In fact, there is one thing above all that men want from their women: that they are pleasant.
A girlfriend or wife doesn’t have to have the looks of Giselle Bundchen, the homemaking skills of Martha Stewart or the bedroom skills of a professional call girl to make a man happy. All of these would be nice bonuses, but they are not nearly as important as the ability to make a man feel relaxed, content and appreciated. A woman who is mediocre in all of the former attributes can easily make up for it by being a sweet, pleasant person who takes the edge off at home.
via What do Men Want in a Wife, and Why Won’t Wives Oblige? – The Spearhead.