The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > Great Debates

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 09-30-2011, 01:30 AM
Boyo Jim Boyo Jim is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 31,045
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary "Wombat" Robson View Post
I've heard that quote, Boyo Jim, but I've also heard people explain that criminals wouldn't stop being criminals just because they didn't have guns. They'd find other ways to hurt or kill people. "If I can't shoot him with a gun, I'll just use this bow & arrow, or beat him with a baseball bat, or stab him with a knife, or poison him, or blow up his car, or set his house on fire, or run him over with a car, or ..."
I think the point is that outlawing guns will do absolutely nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, so they will have absolutely no need to find any other ways to hurt or kill people. Presumably this applies to habitual criminals -- a spouse killer acting out of passion may indeed have to resort to a knife or something else, but not your typical armed robber.
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #152  
Old 09-30-2011, 02:27 AM
Argent Towers Argent Towers is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Measure for Measure View Post
And Germany and Japan have rather violent histories as well.
Totally different. They have violent histories in terms of leaders using the population as a collective mass to carry out violent goals, but they have zero tradition of individual people committing individual and unrelated acts of violence. The people in those countries were all working together for what they thought was the greater good. America is far, far more fragmented and factional, with many wide and varied groups of people with totally different reasons for committing violent acts.

In short, the Japanese and Germans have a history of being violent to other peoples. The Americans have a history of being violent to each other. Totally different kind of violence.
Reply With Quote
  #153  
Old 09-30-2011, 02:54 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Argent Towers View Post
Totally different. They have violent histories in terms of leaders using the population as a collective mass to carry out violent goals, but they have zero tradition of individual people committing individual and unrelated acts of violence.
Samurai had the right to kill any peasant that looked at them funny. At times they did so. Okinawa in particular didn't enjoy being ruled under such arbitrary individual power. Drunken samurai were a real threat.

Also, the European state in the 17th and even 19th century wasn't exactly a force that promoted the commonwealth: that idea was only invented during the Enlightenment. Murder rates were quite a bit higher, exceeding 10 per 100,000 in the late 1500s in Jolly England. I'd say that they declined with the expansion of rule of law, something that was in shorter supply in 19th century US.

http://akinokure.blogspot.com/2009/0...800-years.html
http://marginalrevolution.com/margin...ide-rates.html
Admittedly, UK murder rates in the 1800s were a lot lower than the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim
I think the point is that outlawing guns will do absolutely nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, so they will have absolutely no need to find any other ways to hurt or kill people.
That is certainly one point. A point that is falsified by the European experience, where the bad guys use knives and pick pocketing.
Reply With Quote
  #154  
Old 09-30-2011, 04:55 AM
rogerbox rogerbox is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
edit: Nevermind.

Last edited by rogerbox; 09-30-2011 at 04:56 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #155  
Old 09-30-2011, 08:32 AM
Der Trihs Der Trihs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary "Wombat" Robson View Post
I've heard that quote, Boyo Jim, but I've also heard people explain that criminals wouldn't stop being criminals just because they didn't have guns. They'd find other ways to hurt or kill people. "If I can't shoot him with a gun, I'll just use this bow & arrow, or beat him with a baseball bat, or stab him with a knife, or poison him, or blow up his car, or set his house on fire, or run him over with a car, or ..."
Guns however are more efficient at killing, and more likely to kill you even if the criminal isn't actually trying to do so. A criminal who shoots you once and runs away is more likely to kill you than one who punches or clubs or stabs you once then runs away. A relatively common form of gun crime, I understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyo Jim View Post
I think the point is that outlawing guns will do absolutely nothing to take guns out of the hands of criminals, so they will have absolutely no need to find any other ways to hurt or kill people.
Of course, in reality it would and in more than just this country. America is the criminal arsenal of the Americas; the US is awash in easily accessible guns and they provide a ready source of weapons for criminals in both North and South America. Mexico, for example; we complain about drugs and illegal aliens crossing the border into America, but we don't care about our guns crossing into Mexico and killing Mexicans. But then, American gun lovers typically don't care about anything but their guns.

Less access to guns for the general public means less for the criminals themselves. Less for them to steal, less for them to purchase at gun shows and so forth. They don't make their own guns, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #156  
Old 09-30-2011, 08:54 AM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
Guns however are more efficient at killing, and more likely to kill you even if the criminal isn't actually trying to do so. A criminal who shoots you once and runs away is more likely to kill you than one who punches or clubs or stabs you once then runs away.
Such a claim is debatable and unprovable at best at best, and completely wrong at worst.

How did you calculate the number of times criminals shot at someone once and ran away? How many of those incidents resulted in a miss with no injury at all? My SWAG would be that >95% of such incidents result in no injury whatsoever, simply because of the accuracy of weapons fired in this manner.

How did you calculate ow may times criminals stabbed someone once and ran away? How many of those incidents resulted in a miss with no injury at all? My SWAG would be that <5% of such incidents result in no injury whatsoever, simply because it's damn near impossible to miss with a knife.

But since you presented this statement of fact in GD, you will be bale to provide us with this evidence, won't you?

IOW: CITE!


Quote:
American gun lovers typically don't care about anything but their guns.



Quote:
Less access to guns for the general public means less for the criminals themselves.
CITE!
When you look at places like Australia, where handguns have been always heavily restricted, criminals have no problems whatsoever obtaining handguns

So I would like to see some evidence for this claim that reduced access to firearms by members of the public is correlated in any way at all to firearm use by criminals.
Reply With Quote
  #157  
Old 09-30-2011, 10:16 AM
Zeriel Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary "Wombat" Robson View Post
The state-by-state information is still rather interesting. It appears to show that in today's environment in the U.S., stricter gun control seems to correlate with higher murder rates. Obviously, there are many other factors to consider: crime rates are higher where population densities are higher, for example. I haven't seen any studies comparing prevalence of safety training programs to firearm-related deaths, either.
I am willing to bet you'll find the correlation to higher murder rates is with drug use, poverty, and population density, but not necessarily firearms regulation.
Reply With Quote
  #158  
Old 09-30-2011, 10:42 AM
LonesomePolecat LonesomePolecat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Exham Priory
Posts: 4,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by handsomeharry View Post
Not necessarily.
A robber with a weapon, and you with none, leaves your life fully at the good mercies of a felon.
A robber with a weapon and you with one can help equalize the situation.

Full compliance with the demands of a malefactor led to the WTC coming down.

hh
Not seeing the connection. We're talking about ordinary street crime here, not political terrorism.
Reply With Quote
  #159  
Old 09-30-2011, 11:25 AM
LonesomePolecat LonesomePolecat is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Exham Priory
Posts: 4,500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gus_Handsome View Post
Question for the legal eagles...

Suppose I get mugged and I have a firearm on me but don't use it because I deem it too risky.
As the mugger is walking away with my cash, if I pull my gun out and shoot him in the back, would I be in hot water?

Thanks
Gus
Yes. IMNAL, but a self-defense plea only works if you are in immediate danger of death or serious injury. That doesn't include shooting someone who's walking away from you in the back, even if he did just rob you. Please tell me you don't own a gun.
Reply With Quote
  #160  
Old 09-30-2011, 11:34 AM
Kearsen Kearsen is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raguleader View Post
And it has also caused the vast majority of hijackings to end with minimal loss of life, which is why it was the advised course of action in hijackings.

The analogy is flawed anyways for the 9/11 attacks because it's not the same thing. The OP isn't asking if it's safer to pull a gun or not when caught in a terrorist attack, they're talking about getting robbed.

Aha, but how do you know which is which?

Excuse me pilot, I need you to take this plane to Minnesota, I want to go to the world trade fair or: Excuse me pilot, I want you to fly this plane into the Pentagon.

Not all robberies end with the criminal letting the person go, nor do all rapes, kidnappings etc...
Reply With Quote
  #161  
Old 09-30-2011, 01:13 PM
Una Persson Una Persson is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: On the dance floor.
Posts: 14,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Der Trihs View Post
...we complain about drugs and illegal aliens crossing the border into America, but we don't care about our guns crossing into Mexico and killing Mexicans.
Obama Administration? Meet Der Trihs, who I'm sure has posted a thread castigating you on providing semi-automatic weapons to Mexican drug dealers...but doggone it, Search isn't pulling up that thread.

Quote:
But then, American gun lovers typically don't care about anything but their guns.
Apparently, the same is true of American gun haters. Imagine that.
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 09-30-2011, 04:53 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,799
Quote:
Quoth Wombat:
I found an interesting chart from the Guardian about U.S. gun-related crime by state. I find it fascinating that states with very high gun ownership and loose gun laws (e.g., Montana, Wyoming, Vermont) seem to have very low gun crime rates per capita, while states with rigid gun laws (e.g., California and New York) have higher rates. The District of Columbia, with very stringent gun control, has the highest gun crime in the country by a huge margin.
I've never yet seen these statistics done properly... Perhaps some time when I have a lot of time on my hands I'll try to do it myself. Gun crime rates per capita (technically speaking, crime per the integral of population density with respect to area) is the wrong measure to use, since a gun crime (or most crimes, really) is an interaction between two people. What you really want to measure is crime per capita per population density (technically, crime per the integral of the square of population density with respect to area).

As for the gun laws being tightest in places where there's the most gun violence, well, which way does the causality run? It seems to me that if you've got a lot more gun crime, there's a lot more incentive to pass restrictive gun laws.
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 09-30-2011, 05:50 PM
Shodan Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 26,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by willthekittensurvive? View Post
slight non GQ hijack...

what if you are a woman, and being robbed is only the first thing the mugger want to do to you......

saying losing your money is okay, but what will the mugger take aswell,
You throw your money one way and run in the other. If he goes after the money, you get away. If he goes after you, at least you have a head start.

But "run for it" is nearly always the best option. Even if he points a gun at you and says "get in the car", you still run. Most criminals - heck, most people - are lousy shots, and won't hit you except by accident unless the muzzle is actually pressed against you.

Regards,
Shodan
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 09-30-2011, 06:31 PM
msmith537 msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
CITE!
When you look at places like Australia, where handguns have been always heavily restricted, criminals have no problems whatsoever obtaining handguns

So I would like to see some evidence for this claim that reduced access to firearms by members of the public is correlated in any way at all to firearm use by criminals.
Firearm murders per capital by country:
USA #8
AU #27

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 09-30-2011, 11:21 PM
Blake Blake is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 10,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Firearm murders per capital by country:
USA #8
AU #27

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita
And.....?
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 10-01-2011, 03:19 PM
Chronos Chronos is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 55,799
So apparently criminals in Australia do have a harder time getting guns. Or they're more reluctant to use them, or something.
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 10-01-2011, 06:31 PM
Gary Robson Gary Robson is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Montana, U.S.A.
Posts: 9,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
As for the gun laws being tightest in places where there's the most gun violence, well, which way does the causality run? It seems to me that if you've got a lot more gun crime, there's a lot more incentive to pass restrictive gun laws.
Quite likely. Correlation does not imply causation.
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 10-01-2011, 06:46 PM
SciFiSam SciFiSam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake View Post
Such a claim is debatable and unprovable at best at best, and completely wrong at worst.

How did you calculate the number of times criminals shot at someone once and ran away? How many of those incidents resulted in a miss with no injury at all? My SWAG would be that >95% of such incidents result in no injury whatsoever, simply because of the accuracy of weapons fired in this manner.

How did you calculate ow may times criminals stabbed someone once and ran away? How many of those incidents resulted in a miss with no injury at all? My SWAG would be that <5% of such incidents result in no injury whatsoever, simply because it's damn near impossible to miss with a knife.

But since you presented this statement of fact in GD, you will be bale to provide us with this evidence, won't you?

IOW: CITE!









CITE!
When you look at places like Australia, where handguns have been always heavily restricted, criminals have no problems whatsoever obtaining handguns

So I would like to see some evidence for this claim that reduced access to firearms by members of the public is correlated in any way at all to firearm use by criminals.
Isn't it logical that, the more guns there are in a country, the easier criminals will find it to get them? But it's fair for you to ask for a cite, I guess, as long as you provide one for your comment about Australia.
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 10-02-2011, 03:01 PM
Abatis Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by runcible spoon View Post
I know it's a complicated question, which is why I'm really interested in cites here - if I'm being robbed, does it make it more ore less dangerous for me to have a gun? My thinking here is that on the one hand, if I have a gun and the person robbing me doesn't, okay, I may not get robbed. But if we both have guns (or if the person robbing me is just crazy), I've just escalated the situation, which may make it more likely to end in violence. But I realize I have no idea what the actual statistics are one way or the other.

Please note, I'm talking about one person, not about gun control - I'd prefer to keep this in GQ.
17 years ago the DOJ analyzed crime data from 1987-92 and put the number of persons defending themselves with a firearm against crime of violence averages 62,000 annually plus 20,000 stopping property crimes.
"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft April 1994, NCJ-147003
Given the changes in firearm laws in the ensuing 24 years, that 62,000 annual average should be considered a low-end estimate today. More than 30 states have moved to a shall issue concealed weapons permit system (or unrestricted) since then and many millions of citizens now carry a gun for defense now.

Even if we were to accept that 62,000 average as applicable today it is still impressive; that is 170 people a day nationwide that defended their lives and person from bodily harm. What is the old saying . . . If it saves one life?

Now to the precise point of your question . . . The USDoJ says those who use a firearm to defend themselves are the least likely group to sustain injuries in the incident. They were even less likely to be injured than those who offered no resistance.
"At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent."

National Institute of Justice - Firearms and Violence. by Jeffrey A. Roth
Those armed citizens have an impact on criminal behavior.
"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986). See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).
As I said, with the changes in gun laws in the years since these studies, I think one could safely assume that instances of and thus these percentages describing defensive gun use have only grown.

If 34% of felons described being personally "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" when only 9 states allowed concealed carry what is it now when 41 states allow it?
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 10-03-2011, 02:17 PM
runcible spoon runcible spoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
17 years ago the DOJ analyzed crime data from 1987-92 and put the number of persons defending themselves with a firearm against crime of violence averages 62,000 annually plus 20,000 stopping property crimes.
"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics:
Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft April 1994, NCJ-147003
Given the changes in firearm laws in the ensuing 24 years, that 62,000 annual average should be considered a low-end estimate today. More than 30 states have moved to a shall issue concealed weapons permit system (or unrestricted) since then and many millions of citizens now carry a gun for defense now.

Even if we were to accept that 62,000 average as applicable today it is still impressive; that is 170 people a day nationwide that defended their lives and person from bodily harm. What is the old saying . . . If it saves one life?

Now to the precise point of your question . . . The USDoJ says those who use a firearm to defend themselves are the least likely group to sustain injuries in the incident. They were even less likely to be injured than those who offered no resistance.
"At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent."

National Institute of Justice - Firearms and Violence. by Jeffrey A. Roth
Those armed citizens have an impact on criminal behavior.
"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."

Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986). See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 (1994).
As I said, with the changes in gun laws in the years since these studies, I think one could safely assume that instances of and thus these percentages describing defensive gun use have only grown.

If 34% of felons described being personally "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim" when only 9 states allowed concealed carry what is it now when 41 states allow it?
Thank you for the statistics! Fascinating. It should be noted, though, that the paragraph after the one quoting injury rates reads:

Quote:
For two reasons, these statistics are an insufficient basis for the personal decision whether or not to obtain a gun for self-protection. First, the decision involves a
trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor. Perhaps offenders lost the advantage of surprise, which allowed victims not only to deploy their guns but also to take other evasive action. More detailed analysis of gun self-defense cases is needed to measure both the frequency and consequences of different self-defense actions using guns.
Still, it seems that pulling a gun may not have as much danger of escalation as a lot of people (including me) assume.
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 10-03-2011, 02:46 PM
Zeriel Zeriel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
17 years ago the DOJ analyzed crime data from 1987-92 and put the number of persons defending themselves with a firearm against crime of violence averages 62,000 annually plus 20,000 stopping property crimes.
In other words, the cites don't really address the question, unless there's a definition of "violent crime" that only includes muggings.

Certainly having and producing a concealed firearm is a useful thing when confronted with an actively violent criminal, but absent statistics otherwise I'm not really convinced the data you've provided speaks to the question in the OP.
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 10-06-2011, 01:45 AM
Measure for Measure Measure for Measure is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 10,098
Cherry picking

Supporting Zeriel's point:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abatis View Post
"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns.
Next sentence in link:
In most cases victims defending themselves with firearms were confronted by unarmed offenders or those armed with weapons other than firearms.
So at best, the stat has to be treated with care before applying it to the OP. It's not clear whether from that statistic whether an unarmed defender could have done as well.

But props for finding that study. You linked to a press release: it might be interesting to give the whole work a close reading. (Alas, I for one am too lazy.)

Moving on to armed/unarmed victim comparisons:
Quote:
"At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent."
Interesting. So we have an 8 percentage point edge for gun use over no resistance at all. I wouldn't call that large. I'd like to check the statistical significance. Interesting though. Now, again, let's move on to the very next sentence:

For two reasons, these statistics are an insufficient basis for the personal decision whether or not to obtain a gun for self-protection. First, the decision involves a trade-off between the risks of gun accidents and violent victimization. Second, it is not entirely clear that the relatively few robberies and assaults in which victims defended themselves with guns are typical of these types of crimes and that the lower injury rates resulted from the self-defense action rather than some other factor. Perhaps offenders lost the advantage of surprise, which allowed victims not only to deploy their guns but also to take other evasive action. More detailed analysis of gun self-defense cases is needed to measure both the frequency and consequences of different self-defense actions using guns.
Emphasis added. Yi-yi. Criminologists really need to work harder. That or they should get better funding.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.