Thursday assorted links


2. Fewer households with guns, more guns in households with guns. If people from households with guns shoot people from other households with guns, that's one thing, but when people from households with guns shoot people from households without guns, that's altogether different. Fortunately, people from households with guns mostly shoot themselves and people from other households with guns.

"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way if he gets angry, he’ll be a mile away and barefoot." Sorry, but it's just how I feel.

Keep on pushing that rock up the hill.

If most new guns are purchased by gun owners that already own many guns rather than by new gun owners, then that would seem to imply that it's already too late for efforts to limit gun purchases --- background checks, no-fly no-buy, etc. --- to be very effective. Those would-be purchasers likely already own many guns. To make are real dent, we would have to take away guns from existing gun owners. However, even if declining, at 36% the Gun-Owning community still comprises a substantial portion of our population, much larger than other minority groups. If deporting 11 million illegal immigrants would require onerously unacceptable police-state actions, going door-to-door to root out targets, then trying to deport illegal guns from a third of our households would seem even more likely to require unacceptable tactics.

#2: An hour of shooting can get expensive, and banging away at paper targets isn't a whole lot of fun. Playing a few rounds of Counterstrike on the game box is much more interesting.

I would rather die than betray a friend. Sorry, but it's just how I feel.

Are you some sort of stupid Ken M parody?

Huh...because there would be no women in sports wo segregation. At least not biological women. Stupid article.

They know that, they're just shouting their loyalty to Dear Leader.


Two options.

1) No segregation, one pool, best people win

2) If you have separate sports you need to test somehow

Article never really confronts this or offers a real compromise.

Just liberal whining. You're not supposed to think about it you're just supposed to nod and hate the patriarchy and acknowledge the wonderful goodness of the NYT.

2. Watch a YouTube about a gun and you might see an ad by the NRA which leads with "politicians are appeasing terrorists." So, fewer but weirder?

Alledgedly F&F guns were used in Paris shooting. Merci Obama

Wow, that's a really funny meme. The gun came from Phoenix, and Phoenix was near "Fast and Furious" so ... blame Obama. Rather than that owning such guns in Phoenix privately, and selling them privately, are both rights defended by the NRA?

You read these stories and when you get to the bottom of them the gun sales are just what the NRA wants and defends.

4. Most of the students participating in the study attend the Univ. of Houston. I'd do whatever is necessary to consume more alcohol if I lived in Houston.

Having attended the University of Houston, very briefly, and growing up in Houston I am hardly surprised at the bulimia portion of the story. And Houston has awful booze prices. But UH while typical of a certain college experience is the sort of school that is largely lower middle class or a safety school where much of the student body lives with their parents and it has minimal campus life. If it had been conducted at UMN, another commuter school, you would have gotten different numbers.

In general this seems mostly a story about coeds in tight cocktail dresses with cracked phones and bad judgement, it is not about student life but rather gender. Do an image search for binge drinking UK and this shows the same problem only a lot worse.

During my time at an unnamed western Land Grant institution once described as having a culture that is nasty, inebriated and uncivil, I saw some impressive drinking but quantity is still the competitive goal. Pre gaming seemed to mostly involve chowing down first in order to consume more as the night rolls on.

My older (by a year) brother attended our state's flagship state university and pledged a fraternity. I'd go up Saturday mornings on football game days and we would eat at the fraternity house, the dining room packed with all the brothers eating an enormous meal that would keep them sober for hours if not days. That was over 45 years ago. Today, I have a home in the low country, on an island which is the traditional place for students (and alumni) to stay on the weekend of the annual rival game an hour or two south. What I've noticed is that today the point of drinking is intoxication, public intoxication, public vomiting, public passing out. In my time such behavior would put one on the black list, never to get a date again. Things really are different today. And not only in Houston.

Please stay out of Houston

We have way too many people coming to take good jobs and cheap housing, and quite frankly it's gotten too crowded

Drinking before eating is called happy hour and is quite popular even among older folk. Also, beer is food enough.

Truth is, you can hug your children with automatic firearms. They would shoot you at sight.

I sincerely believed #5 would be about the vast over-representation of African-Americans in sports. It was not.

I'm so naive.

2. If that's the case why is the silencer minority so much more powerful than the silent majority?

Single issue voters.

Most people don't have abortions and the abortion rate is falling.

Not too many people get gay married, and yet a lot of people fought for it. You dont have to exert a right to want to defend it.


the point of gay marriage was to get a back door way to neutralize christianity. "well you can't discriminate, so that means you can't incorporate christianity in your life away from church. you're not a bigot are you?"

That's funny, I thought the point was to allow gay people to marry the people they care about and acquire the same benefits that straight people get out of marriage. But clearly it's all about the Christians since they're the only people who are "for real" married in the U.S. if not the world.

That's what makes the ploy so successful. They give it great sounding names and optics and people who aren't paying attention (like you) believe it. Pay attention to what the anti-Christian people who just happen to be gay say about Christians and religion. It was not a coincidence that the gay couple in Oregon went to a Christian cake company for their wedding cake. It was a setup a sting and it worked like a charm. And no doubt you never knew it was all planned to destroy a Christian couple's life.

I think gay people would have been happy to call it anything so that cohabiting romantic relationships could take on long term commitments in a legal sense, with the various decision-making abilities, benefits, costs, etc., which might apply to being part of such a relationship in the legal sense.

But since all the other steps would have been very time consuming and troublesome to go through one at a time, in my opinion it's due to the resistance of (some) Christians (and some others) to LGBT rights which made is necessary (?) to go the route of just calling it "marriage" and everything is the same for insurance, workplace stuff, decision making about health, life, and all manner of other complicated things. So, anyways, I think they basically have that, and no Christian (or other) sect is required to perform marriage services for LGBT or accept them into their clergy, etc. So what's the big deal? If Christians of that type of persuasion were, 20 years ago, to have gotten behind the idea of "OK, equal rights, but we want "marriage" to be between a man and a woman, so let's just get the non-discrimination sorted out...", but, then, in some circles any sort of enhanced rights for LGBT is something to be opposed at all times and places, no matter really what's at stake or any sorts of reasonable middle groups or anything.

At least we don't here so much along the lines of "next, you know, they'll be saying that pedophilia is OK" or any such nonsense.

The idea of allowing gay couples to participate in civil unions (i.e. all the legal benefits of marriage without the title) was offered by many prominent people who opposed gay marriage. The gay "rights" movement would not settle for that.

BTW, just because the government says "this benefit is for people X, not people Y" doesn't mean your rights are being violated. Marriage-related legal benefits aren't a right; they are a piece of social engineering that was set up to encourage and support nuclear family formation. Even (most) gay marriage activists didn't think children, siblings, or groups of 3+ people should be allowed to marry.

Marriage is supposed to be for gay couples as much as bar mitzvahs are supposed to be for non-Christian kids, or softball trophies are supposed to be for basketball teams.

My take on the whole gay marriage thing is that it's kind of an extension of the "give everyone a medal for showing up" concept. But what are the stats on gay couples who actually intend to settle down and start families? Has anyone tabulated what percentage of gay couples buy houses according to school district and attempt to adopt or do IVF? Are there gay magazines whose content suggests this is a popular lifestyle choice?

*as much as bar mitzvahs are supposed to be for non-Jewish kids

Why is the silent majority not winning?

1) The history of gun violence since 1990 sure supports the libertarian views. That the government getting out of the way of gun purchases made people want less guns in the long run. (Also crime fell so less people feel the need.)

2) The real driver is lot less people hunt.

First of all, I don't think there is a choherant "libertarian" view on this. It probably ranges anywhere from Anarchists who think personal tanks are cool, to somewhat more restrictive requirements on ex-Cons, etc, but less restrictions on everything else.
Secondly, what the what? The restrictions have been rolled back in the last 15 years or so and violence has gone up. They may not be correlated, but the statistics sure don't say what you seem to think they do.
Finally, the article about numbers of households dropping seems to support the narrative that makes the most sense to me, that the NRA/Gun lobby is more about protecting the financial interests of the people making and selling guns, and their biggest customers, than it is about "personal freedom".

I wonder how many gunowners would admit today that they have guns in the house, especially after a newspaper published all the addresses of gunowners in their area.

Part of the decline may be people deciding it's not in their best interest to reveal this information.

Couple more points:

1) concealed carry permits rose from 4.6 million in 2007 to 12.8 million last year.

2) hunting permits have fallen from over 40 million in the 1970s to about 12 million today.

So while gun ownership per household may be falling, the reason for owning a gun has become a lot more personal. General interest may be waning but the those who are interested are very interested.

Besides the fact that no newspaper in America is allowed to do any such thing ... um, anything else to add?

I would be interested to see the breakdown by race. I've never heard of a black or hispanic "gun nut."

I never heard of a redneck listening to a song about shooting cops.

That's interesting, isn't it? There's a fascination with guns on the part of many males who aren't white and rural, but it's not an ideological one. The only guy to ever put a gun to my head is Hispanic (he was being a douchebag and showing off) but I'd hesitate to call him a "gun nut" because he's not really the kind of guy that term brings to mind.

You've never heard of Sir Mix A Lot?

I'm sure there are plenty of "gun nuts" of all races in Texas and Arizona. The main issue is that it takes alot of money to become that devoted to the hobby. So it's gonna skew white for that reason if nothing else.

'More than 80 percent of college students in a new study' apparently means 80 percent of heavy drinkers from the University of Houston. I'm still calling bullshit though, especially given that the source is a presentation.

3. Apparently Betfair cannot be accessed from Canada. In any case, how did Betfair do in predicting Brexit? My recollection is that both the markets and the betting markets failed. If it didn't predict Brexit correctly, why do you now treat it as authoritative?


"EU Referendum - Day of Vote Odds
Britain to stay in the EU 1.13 (an 88% chance)
Britain to leave the EU 8.00 (12%)"


Messed up formatting:

EU Referendum – Day of Vote Odds. Britain to stay in the EU 1.13 (an 88% chance). Britain to leave the EU 8.00 (12%)

"3. The chance that Article 50 will be invoked this year is only slightly above fifty percent."

After the poor showing that BetFair did with regards to the Brexit vote, this comment feels sarcastic.

10% chance =/= 0% chance. Sometimes the long odds win.

Well sure, but there's no other indication that it was only a 10% chance. The polls were showing roughly 50/50.

2. It's okay to target a minority with legal restrictions if they're a minority I don't like.

You mean, mass shooters?

I support laws against mass shootings.

I support keeping guns out of their hands, the same way I support keeping alcohol outside minors' reach even if some people feel bothered by having to show their ID Card to buy booze. This is how civilization works.

Civilization is not working all that well these days—least of all in, ha, Brazil.

Gun control didn't help the Bataclan Brussel or Istanbul victims

Everywhere, it works much better than the alternative-- as Americans should have learned already from their Civil War, from their Jim Crow, from their aggression against Iraq and from their country being five times more violent than the average PIIGS country, simply unheard for a modern rich country.

Indeed. Maybe Americans should make America safe for Americans before trying to make the world safe for democracy. Just a thought.

How many young men are willing to put in prison for a war on guns?

I love how you support your argument for one ineffective and likely counterproductive policy by citing your support for another ineffective and likely counterproductive policy.

Non-controlled assault rifles + alcohol for children. What can go wrong?

Adam makes a good point we only had a little difficulty getting alcohol and none getting drugs when I was a minor (maybe it's harder in Brazil, I doubt it). There used to be joke that Tango and apple wine where is liquor store section titled "For Minors Only".

"Gun control didn’t help the Bataclan Brussel or Istanbul victims"

Brussels was a bombing with no guns involved. I don't know the gun laws of Turkey, but it is a country with a porous border with a Syria, a place wracked with one of the most violent civil wars in years, drowning in weapons. Bataclan was a carefully planned attack by a dedicated cell of terrorists directly supported by ISIS. They had substantial resources and spent time acquiring their illegal weapons, potentially from arms traffickers in the Balkans.

The Orlando shooter, on the other hand, legally purchased his weapon two weeks before at a gun store.

"Adam makes a good point we only had a little difficulty getting alcohol and none getting drugs when I was a minor (maybe it’s harder in Brazil, I doubt it)."
It is very hard where I live. No papers, no alcohol-- no exceptions. There are federal, state and city laws forbidding people from selling, offering or giving alcohol to minors. When people want to fight social evil, people do it; when they don't want, they make up excuses. It may inconvenience people a little, but we know we are protecting our society our way of life.

@JP Same with the Charlie Hebdo attackers,the guns did not come from Syria. It's not hard to get AK-47 in France. France is awash in guns. Open Borders again. There are gang related shootings in Marseilles very often.

"It is very hard where I live. No papers, no alcohol– no exceptions. There are federal, state and city laws forbidding people from selling, offering or giving alcohol to minors"

Are you really pretending that it's hard for minors to get alcohol in the US just because there laws against it? Go visit a college campus sometime. You're living in a fantasy land.

"Are you really pretending that it’s hard for minors to get alcohol in the US just because there laws against it? Go visit a college campus sometime. You’re living in a fantasy land."
In BRAZIL, or some of its neighborhoods at least, it is. But it is mostly because Brazilian authorities are not in the povket of Big Alcohol.

Oh geez, I didn't realize you were writing your gun control screeds from Brazil, home of strict gun control and a firearm murder rate 5 times that of the US. Combined with your suggestion that Brazilian government officials aren't corrupt, I'm not assuming you're either insane or a sock puppet.

Abortion is murder to many people, with a body count that exceeds gun violence.
Sodomy spreads AIDS and STDs, which have high medical costs passed on to society, along with a high death rate.

But abortion and sodomy are essential rights for a free people. Gun ownership is not.

Shockingly, not everyone in the country agrees on what rights are really essential.

I think we can all agree that my rights are essential.

Depends which rights you're asking for (or expecting or proposing). But you seem like a pretty reasonable guy ...

Evidently guns are not associated to any risk to humam health whatsoever... Trump must be doing poorly at the polls if the far-right is getting so desperate already.
"Abortion is murder to many people"
Mass shootings are murder just to some people, I guess.

Are you supposed to be a partisan caricature or what?

"Or what."

Oh. Then you're doing it wrong.

I will try to give you some credit here, and say that I know that you know there are many restrictions of which you approve. You don't want a next door neighbour tiring of the sewer and digging an outhouse. And so, generously, I'll say that you recognize that restrictions are a risk, to be balanced with benefit.

Yeah, we know that. I'd say the problem is with people who don't recognize the calculus, who falsely see absolutes where they don't exist. They don't recognize current restrictions. They imagine that any shift from current restrictions is the end of the world.

Your generosity of spirit is exceeded only by Christ Himself, though my neighbor has a septic tank, not a sewer, and my yard is my sometimes-outhouse.

I think legal restrictions where a majority targets a minority deserve a more skepticism and care. If the majority does not partake in an activity, the restriction is not burdening them in any way, so it is more likely that they will push the restrictions further. I would say the same of various sexual acts.

5. I eagerly await the day when all athletes in women's sports are men who identify as women.

You and me both

Somehow sports is the one place (at least) where I think the XY / XX distinction needs to be kept clear. How about for gender statistics related to board positions, etc.? Would it count as a man or a woman, or is LGTB another category...?

4. "Rinker’s study was based on a survey that included responses from 1,184 college students, most of them from the University of Houston, who had drunk heavily at least once in the past 30 days."

That last clause seems pretty important.

The "problems" seem to assume that people who skip a meal still drink the exact same amount they would have if they hadn't skipped a meal. What if they are drinking to a certain level of intoxication, rather than a certain number of drinks? Then not eating a meal would require less alcohol consumption, which is presumably a net positive. Plus with the smaller caloric intake, they will acquire a beer belly more slowly.

It is hard to get a good buzz off light beer with a full stomach. Eating dinner beforehand is a waste. A big glass of water every once in a while is a great idea though.


Skipping a meal before a night of drinking is a perfectly rational economic choice. Save on food, save on alcohol.

One the other hand:

We studied the frequency and correlates of self-induced vomiting after the consumption of alcohol. Participants were 107 female university students who completed a survey designed for this study along with measures of eating disordered attitudes and behaviors, and depression. Based on their responses to the survey, 59.8 % of the sample that reported drinking alcohol also reported having engaged in self-induced vomiting after alcohol consumption, with 57 % reporting frequency as high as four times in the last month. Participants that reported self-induced of alcohol also reported more bulimia nervosa symptomatology as well as depression. Intentional vomiting after drinking appears to be a problem worthy of further study as a possible variant of a substance use or eating disorder.

That seems pretty extreme. I'm a little skeptical, but maybe the gender imbalance on college campuses these days is making women there a little bulemic?

If I know I'm going to vomit and it will make me feel better I will self induce to get it over with

Really? I have never done anything of the sort in a long career of boozing. But the urge to purge, at least in my case, tends to come on pretty suddenly.

I know it's coming most of the time. Tummy hurts and feeling nauseous? Time to head to the bathroom! Instead of just staring into the abyss of the toilet until it happens I'll just "self induce" by sticking my finger down my throat and provoking the gag reflex. I suspect this is fairly common as is evident in the study.

The few times I recall insta-barfing was because I drank some strong liquor that immediately provoked my gag reflex and I wasn't strong enough to overcome it. I've learned to stick to beer.

The "Puke and Rally" I never really got into. Once I barfed it was typically the first step on the long road to recovery.

Maybe. Or they drink too much, start to feel sick, and decide to self-induce the vomiting to get it over with (or to get back to drinking). But a little of one, a little of the other.

*But probably a little of one, a little of the other.

So Brexit actually stood for Boris's exit?

5. Women have separate sporting events because they are not competitive against men, biology trumps everything

Yep. If we merged the womens' and mens' categories of most Olympic events or sports, there would simply be no women who could compete. It's easy to see this in track and field events, because there are recorded times/distances for men and women, and they're pretty far apart. Men are on average a lot bigger and stronger than women, and that persists when you take the most able 0.0001 of women and men and set them to competing on who can run the fastest or lift the most weight or throw a javelin the furthest.

5: Two answers:
1) Even If women-with-extra-testosterone are very rare, since the pool of competitors in something like the Olympics is huge, without the restrictions, you will expect to see them dominate. At that point do you really expect women to care about the women's olympics? It's a *sport*.

2) Using the word 'discrimination' here equates separating men from women to separating blacks from whites. Please make that claim explicit rather than implicit and defend it. It's an extraordinary claim and the fact that some wackos got into the Office of Civil Rights under Obama doesn't change that fact.

The whole point of a "women's league" is because women aren't competitive with men. So you set up a junior league. But whatever criteria you have for the junior league, you need to enforce it, especially for high-level competitions.

If we were seeing who the fastest 15-years-and-under person was in the world, we would need to enforce that criteria.

At least age is objective. For now. But someone has the enjoyable job of figuring out what counts as a woman, with the New York Times hounding you if you get it wrong. Why even bother?

"Junior league"? I was told US women's national soccer team wants equal pay for equal work. The same person told me the US women's national team would beat the US men's national team. The prior has more world cups!

"The same person told me the US women’s national team would beat the US men’s national team".
To be frank, it is not a high bar. Soccer demands moral fibre americans don't have.

A higher tolerance for boredom, too.

Brasil eliminated in group play at COPA. US in semifinals.

Germany 7 Brasil 1 in 2014

US 2 Germany1 6/10/2015

There is room for improvement, but you should go to the same timeout room as Dunga.

I don't understand how people evaluate whether a sport is boring or not.

To me, soccer is pretty exciting, but so are baseball, football, hockey, tennis, rugby, and most other sports.

The only sport I think is boring is basketball--unless there's a player whose excellence is overpowering (e.g., Kobe, LeBron), in which case it's at least not boring to watch that person when he's in possession of the ball or defending against an opponent with possession of the ball.

(I'm not counting things like figure skating or gymnastics here. Anything where judges hold up numbers is definitely boring to me. I've never tried watching golf, but I could see it going either way.)

What I really don't get is why I should care what happens once the game is over. Who gives a crap whether this team or that team won, or whether this team or that team goes on to win again? I'm interested in watching sports get played, not in serial melodrama.

Brazil is the 7th in FIFA's ranking and is the country with more Word Cup titles. Meanwhie the USA is number #31 and has faling steadily. Brazil's moral superiority is obvious. Evidently Mr. Dunga was not the best choice for couch--much less the best choice for coach twice--, but Brazil's soccer is, and always will be, way greater than the occasional vicissitudes.

Oh don't worry we are getting there, soon formerly all American boys will have lost that moral fiber that prevents them from taking a dive, flopping is our destiny and we will finally be like the Europeans.


On a scale from stubbed toe to thermonuclear meltdown, how do you see the Rio Olympics playing out?

Yes, I've seen that Brazilian moral fibre, rolling around like a dizzy swan trying to get an opponent yellow carded after a mild tackle.

"On a scale from stubbed toe to thermonuclear meltdown, how do you see the Rio Olympics playing out?"
As well as the World Cup, maybe even better. It may even dwarf the Beijing Games. Almost all public works are complete, some that had been designed for the World Cup are almost ready, too. The security forces' simulations have been wildly successful, the dengue/zika health crisis is abating already, the strikes and riots are dwindling faster than we thought. The transportation infrastructure is being perfected. The morale is higher than ever. Brazilian sportsmen are performing better than ever. To be frank, I only care about soccer and shooting (Kendo is not an Olympics sport), but I am sure the Rio Olympics will be a watershed in the sports history and, more important, in Brazil's history. As Tokyo, 1964, it will mark the hosting country's accession to the group of the great powers. As an old Brazilian song puts it, "again, Europe bows before Brazil".

"Yes, I’ve seen that Brazilian moral fibre, rolling around like a dizzy swan trying to get an opponent yellow carded after a mild tackle."
This is called strategy. Soccer is war by other means, and, as Sun Tzu taught, "all warfare is based on deception".

The Matildas are strongly fancied to give Australia's its best ever shot at a medal in the sport of football at the Rio Olympics in August. Perhaps they should be grateful there will be no under-16s boys' teams in their pool.

In a friendly match against the Newcastle Jets under-16 boys team on Wednesday, the Matildas were humbled 7-0. That's right, the team ranked fifth in FIFA's women's rankings were roughed up by a bunch of lads barely old enough to shave.

#3: this bet is interesting. The 2016 Q3 report of the Bank of England is due on Sep. 21 How long politicians can keep pretending nothing happened?

Well, the Conservatives will announce their new leader Sept 9. How much foot shuffling would it take to get through the year?

As long as it takes, seemingly.

#4 I guess this is a bit of 'kids these days' moral panic, but this was definitely also commonplace when I was in university around 15 years ago. We called it 'puke and rally', though I far prefer the British version, the 'tactical chunder.'

My friends and I called it a "boot and reload"

I'm forgetting whether I've heard "puke and rally" or "boot and rally" more. Might be imagining the boot.

Its worth noting that #2 is not easy to measure. Surveys are starting to run into problems as fewer and fewer people respond to them. I wonder how these results stack up to other ways of measuring gun ownership, such as %gun suicides.

2. Maybe just a symptom of demographic change. Think about what kind of household is most likely to own or report owning guns:

A) roommates or newlyweds in their 20s or early 30s, potentially with very young kids;
B) single moms;
C) married couples age 60 and over.

Then ask yourself which kinds of households are increasing in number relative to the others.

PS. I'd expect to see the % of households reporting gun ownership to go up in the next 10 years as more people move out of their parents' houses, marry, have kids, and become less sympathetic to criminals--IF this trend can outpace the effects of the growing illegitimacy rate.

My question is why even obfuscate with using household measures? Why not just track gun ownership by person.

I don't see this logic as the gun ownership has been falling for decades. (the 1950s)

How about more people are urban versus rural? Urban people are nearer police and don't hunt. Rural residents have to respond quicker for protection and tend to like hunting.

That makes sense too.

This is along the lines I was thinking, though it wouldn't even require a high urban %. It could just be that the type of people who are otherwise most likely to own guns are increasingly urban, and therefore less likely to own them.

It's not as simple as an urban/rural divide. Gun ownership is common in Detroit (where crime and gun violence are high), common in rural counties in Michigan (where both are low) and uncommon in the suburbs.

2. How much of this can be attributed to smaller household size, and demographics of those constituting those smaller households?

2. My guess is this can be explained by looking at veteran households vs. nonveteran households. "Explained" is probably even the wrong word, each of those household types might be more likely to own a gun today vs the 70s.

#5 because sexual dimorphism is real.

Longer answser, to do otherwise would end women's participation higher levels in most sports in which size, speed and strength are an advantage.

HT to Razib Kahn
The differences in physical strength is obvious, but the scale is seldom seldom apprecated. Leyk, D., et al. “Hand-grip strength of young men, women and highly trained female athletes.” European journal of applied physiology 99.4 (2007): 415-421

In grip strength, the median female athelete was in the bottom quartile of all men. The top was only barely into the top quartile of men "the *average* {em added} German man has a grip strength more powerful than the majority of the woman’s Olympic level fencing team"

While men are 1.75 SD greater in height, men are 2.5 SD greater in arm strength.

An example of how the sports evolved to accomodate the differences is gymnastics. The men's and women's exercises are somewhat different, one emphasizing strength and power, the other balance and agility.

The women's US Olympic hockey team scrimmages against high school men's teams.

Women's sports will not exist if men can enter them. Weight classes and height limits and age limits are at least objective and universally agreed upon.

Women's national soccer teams scrimmage and regularly lose against High School soccer teams. If trannies can play women sports they will quickly dominate them and provide incentive for more to join.

4) Skipping a meal when drinking is perfectly reasonable, given how many calories alcohol has. In a sense, alcohol is your meal, albeit not a very healthy one. Grouping meal skipping with inducing vomiting and using a laxative into one category is silly and manipulative.

Its not reasonable if the calories from alcohol have nothing to do with weight gain. Here is a summary of the studies that suggest drinking is more frequently associated with weight loss: Drinking doesn't make you fat

Even if this were true, skipping a meal is not harmful, potentially beneficial even, and certainly not in the same category of harm as induced vomiting and laxative use.

I suspect the underlying issue is how does skipping meals and drinking alcohol effect metabolism? If the calorie model for alcohol is wrong (and I think in its simple form it is wrong), there still may be better choices that could be made than skipping a meal or purging. For example, the benefits of a short fast might be eliminated by drinking during the fast.

Many gun owners are paranoid about other people knowing they have guns, they don't like telling their doctor and I doubt they would admit it to a poll. Especially if it were a CBS news poll (not the lower number reported by CBS).

According to the Gallup pole, there was a strong shift downward in 1996, around the time of the assault weapon ban. Note that this didn't actually take guns out of homes, rather there was a shift in the mentality of gun owners that confiscation was on its way, so they should be quiet about what they have.

That being said the NRA has been idiotic with regards to attracting young members. Blaming video games for inspiring shootings just turns them away.

I can buy this, because contrary to the claim of it being "steady," there is a 10% drop from 2012 to 2016. This would imply that 20%+ of households that had a gun no longer have one, and I can't think of any reason why there would have been such a substantial change in actual behavior over a four year period. It seems more likely that there was a change in reported behavior, perhaps as concerns about mass shootings/gun control have been rising.

"there is a 10% drop from 2012 to 2016. This would imply that 20%+ of households that had a gun no longer have one, and I can’t think of any reason why there would have been such a substantial change in actual behavior over a four year period."

Clearly Obama took advantage of not going to run for president anymore and not caring about Clinton to take White Christian Americans' arms. All according to his plan to stop Americans from shooting the Antichrist. Also, when his Muslim death panels came here to shoot my father, there was nothing we could do. # WhiteandoppressedbyObama

John, I found a picture of you.

Who am I to doubt CUCKMOM5000? The Stormfront is getting funnier every hour.

John, are you more of a #maletears or #killallwhitemen kind of SJW loser?

More unlike a "Sex in the City is oppressing me" type, I guess. Maybe The Sopranos are oppressing me, though. Oh, God, it's gold.

I would wager that this accounts for the majority of the drop. As it becomes less socially acceptable to own guns in many communities, fewer people will self report that they have them. If I were asked whether or not I had a gun, I would probably say no.

I disagree on the segregation in sports. There isn't nearly enough of it. I can't make the US Olympic basketball team because I am too short. Why should I be discriminated against because of some innate characteristic that I am born with and have no control over. There should be more segregation, so I only have to compete against people who are my height and build. Then I could be an Olympian. For example, look at how enlightened the sport of boxing is: the weight classes are: 49 kg, 52 kg, 56 kg, 60 kg, 64 kg, 69 kg, 75 kg, 81 kg, 91 kg, 91+ kg. They are much better than other sports, but could be better still. I mean, the 10 kg weight difference between the 81 kg guy and the 91 kg guy is pretty big. Doesn't that 81 kg guy deserve to be allowed to compete against someone with less of a size advantage? But anyway, at least boxing, wrestling (both freestyle and Greco-Roman), weightlifting, Taekwondo, Judo are more enlightened than sports like basketball, soccer, cycling, track + field, and every other Olympic sport, where there is gross unfairness based on characteristics we are born with and have no control over, that keep us from being competitive. Everyone should have an equal shot at a gold medal in the sport of their choice if they work hard enough - it should be based on effort, not genetics.

Yea too short used to be my excuse but:

Spud Webb and Mugsy Bogues.

Now shut up about being too short.

What if I'm short AND white?

Have you looked into becoming a jockey?

Jockeys have an unnatural thinness. #Makehorseracingbodypositive #JohnL

Bring back Midget Wrestling. Saturday nights have never been complete without it. Form a league, my team would be the "Terrors of Tiny Town" (stolen name from a bad old movie). I wonder if Robert Reich could be our spokes midget.

Here we go a libertarinan blog supposed to be talking about what people "should" and "should not" do?

#5 there 2 types of sports team those that will accept anyone good enough, and the women's teams. Nobody cares because men are so much better at sports.

#2 I am not a gun guy but I am against more laws for the same reason that I am against drugs laws, the costs of enforcement.
To gun control advocates: How many young men are willing to put in prison for a war on guns?
If the number goes above what you find acceptable will you vote for repeal?
Alcohol may be worse that guns ( What is you position on that.

"How many young men are willing to put in prison for a war on guns"
As many as it takes and more. We must send a clear message and draw the line.


Are these people arguing for no separate women's sports? I could beat the womens' world record in multiple track and field events as a senior in high school, as can most athletic boys. The best high school boys have been hitting or going under 4 minute miles for years, but the world record for women is 4 minutes 12 seconds.

I think in general the argument is about the inclusion of intersex people and formerly male trans people in the women category in sports. I suspect the trans actually outnumber the intersex by a lot, but intersex invoke more sympathy from the general population and make for better articles.

To my knowledge, nobody has a problem with those folks competing in the male category, which is probably more accurately described as "open" than "male," except insofar as they need to break doping rules to do so.

The problem is that if I just decided to "identify" as female, and there were no tests or standards ( which the article seems to be arguing against), I would be the greatest "female" athlete in history.

The typical rules are that you have to have been on hormone therapy for 2 years to qualify as female. Which still leads to transwomen completely dominating the top level of sports. Whatever changes 2 years of hormone therapy does, it doesn't stand up to 22 years of growing up male. An basketball player isn't going to lose 8 inches of height (which is the height difference between the average NBA and WNBA player). It's doubtful he would lose even one.

Mark Bell's Powercast #107 features Matt/Jenae Kroc and is a well run, interesting interview. Kroc is "optimistic" about how fair such match-ups would be. I just don't see how you get around having a male skeleton, male muscle attachment points, male tendons. Hell, you're not going to forget how you ran your life for the 30 years of being a guy. The hormones can only change so much.

If women can't achieve world record equality with men, it is definite proof of gender bias in sports judging. #patriarchy #ImWithHer #KillAllWhiteMen

Just put on a wig and a skirt, and not only can you enter the girls' locker room freely, you can have an Olympic medal too. TC is beyond parody when it comes to trans issues.

Isn't it 80% of heavy drinkers in college, not 80% of all college students?

Ok, I'll play. What did a typical "household" look like 40 years ago and how does it compare to today's? Right. When labels change but you don't account for it bias is introduced and statistical inferences supporting weak evidentiary claims at best ("households today" have less demand for firearms than "households 40 years ago") become instead wholly unwarranted. That the "households" run by the sort of people mirrored in HBO's "Sex and the City" and "Girls" don't own many guns doesn't seem very surprising to me.

The Nile isn't just an African river. It is funny how desperate the far-right is getting lately. The conclusions hurting your poor ego are "wholly unwarranted" because... "Sex and the City", "Girls", "Seinfeld?". I hope you go to Rio Olympics because it's gold.

Ugh. Toxic Masculinity much? I can't even. #ImWithHer

Just a reminder that this exists

Yes, and thanks again for writing it.

#2 Re: dropping gun ownership, it's probably not the demographics (and goes without saying, not the decline of the "bitter clingers" or any such nonsense that credulous fools believe in).

The simpler explanation is that '92 when the trend of decrease started, is also when the homicide rates in the US began inflecting downwards (for whatever reason, probably age structure is the prime mover).

When that starts happening, people feel safer, are less interested in real, effective feeling self defense. (Even if personal firearm ownership is not actually that effective for self defense.)

If and when the crime rate inflects again, the ownership rate will change again (presuming no huge legal changes to make it more challenging).

This is all not that related to mass politically motivated "protest" murder in the US, which has upticked (particularly relative to firearm ownership) due to recent cultural trends of social isolation, anomie and resentment (and if people ever start to feel they "have their country back" then it might start decreasing, whether or not you think that sentiment even makes sense for The People to feel).

"4. “More than 80 percent of college students in a new study said they have skipped a meal, induced vomiting or used a laxative in order to consume more alcohol.”

We ought to have a special term for the use of the word "or" as in "65% of women have been raped or called a mean name by a man."

5. I've been waiting for a while for the article advocating women participate in men's sports. That's the established pattern, after all, and the NBA is a lot more popular than the WNBA. And yet, for some strange reason, it's always about allowing men to participate in women's sports.

"in order to consume more alcohol."

This is stated incorrectly, I think. If your goal is to consume more alcohol, then you'll eat that meal and keep it in your belly.

If your goal is to get more drunk without having to consume large quantities of alcohol, that's when you skip the meal.

#5) Why is segregation somehow totally OK in sports? (NYT)

Because reality trumps sophistry.

Comments for this post are closed