DelayedReaction

If you're going to debate what should be banned, then you should know the difference between the classifications. Suggesting that allowing citizens to own small arms would lead to people demanding nuclear proliferation at Wal*Mart is spurious at best. Junk legislation like the AWB does nothing.

I'm not suggesting that people should be able to walk into a store, slap down a credit card, and walk out with a machine gun. But someone who successfully passes a background check and gets the proper license should be allowed to purchase whatever he wants; that's the whole point of "innocent until proven guilty." I'm not a criminal if I want to buy a gun, no matter what gun I want.

The purpose of gun control is (supposedly) to prevent crime by making it difficult for criminals to obtain guns. The problem is that it fails to do that; if it were true then Washington DC would be the safest city in America. All we're doing is preventing law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

OpieCunningham

I'm not debating what should or should not be banned. I'm debating whether anything should be placed into a category that is banned. If I were debating a specific gun, then yes - I would need to know the technical details of how that gun operates in comparison to others. But my point is that there are many different types of guns. Some are more deadly/dangerous than others. There is a whole spectrum of projectile weapons - from little derringers to AK47s to RPGs all the way up to nuclear missles. Lines must be drawn to classify those weapons and some of those classifications should be unavailable to more then 99.9% of the population.

The question is - where do you draw the line? But you seem to be arguing that there should be no lines at all and that the only obstacle is one of time and/or licensing because of "freedom".

There are probably a good number of reasons that freedom is not an acceptable reason to have access to dangerous weapons. You may really really want an RPG and you may have no criminal past, but if you're allowed to have one, we are now assuming that you won't go mad and use it to take out an airplane full of people because your bitch of an ex-wife is on board. Or you are unable to guard the RPG and someone who is not licensed steals it from you and commits a criminal act with it. What good reason could you provide for the necessity of having such a weapon that would alleviate the potential for the weapon to be used for a criminal activity? Freedom is not a practical reason, it is an ideal.

Ideally, I support less gun control vs. more gun control (mainly because I agree with Michael Moore's theory that a fear culture and not access to guns is the primary cause of the inflated U.S. murder rates. Blaming guns is denial of the real problem.). But there has to be limitations. All weapons should not be freely obtainable (even with time/licensing delays).

The key is for both sides to sit down and rationally discuss the issue. Right now it seems like one side is saying "all or almost all guns should be banned" and the other is saying "all or almost all guns should be available to the people". Some guns have no purpose in the hands of most people other than their desire. Desire is not good enough. On the other hand, guns are not the cause of gun deaths - shooting someone is the cause of a gun death. Somewhere in the imperfect middle is where we should be aiming (pun intended).

honestchipmunk

First, in regards to the 18th century technology bits: touche, nicely done.

However, if we're using your hypothetical crowd shooting example, what would you have the crowd do? Shoot back? Ok so they shoot back and the whole thing becomes a mess and vigilante groups spring up all over the country and they fight all the time with the US military. No one really wins ever, and lots of people die on both sides. However, because the oppressed side refuses to remain peaceful, its impossible for world opinion to back them because the US government (while forgetting that they started the thing) will say that every new attack on the armed protesters was retialiation for a previous one. And, they'd be right. The armed protesters storm buildings and take out their tyranical oppressors' guards, but also kill a couple of civilians in the process. So essentially everything is at a standstill, with people steadily dying and no end in sight.

Doesn't this sound a lot like Israel/Palistine?

We forget that it was not only our American revolutionaries that were able to overthrow the British. We had the full backing and support of France (yes, France) and they aided us tremendiously in winning. So, what I guess I'm trying to say is, I don't think any heavily armed militia can beat the US military, were it to suddenly turn evil. Militia groups need backing from some other military power to win outright. Possilbly we could recreate Israel/Palistine here (or the movie Red Dawn) with only a well-armed militia, but actually defend ourselves? No way.

This makes me think that having guns for the purpose of defence against a tyrannical government with our military capabilities is essentially a non-point. We just better hope that never happens, but if it does, hell, I guess we can appeal to France again.

__________________
I'm only a ghost, the breeze on your face when you first smell the coast.

scout

There is adequate laws already, no need to pass more. It's already illegal for the general populace to own fully automatic weapons. The AWB was a load of crap to start with, it done absolutely nothing in lowering the crime rates. In fact studies have shown quite the opposite, generally speaking states with "right to carry" laws have a much lower crime rate than places with strict gun control laws. This is America, people don't necessarily need SUV's, televisions, central air conditioning, running water, heat,freedom of speech, large houses, etc., etc., you get the idea. However, since it's America and people choose to buy these things, choose to say what they wish, as it's their right as a freeborn American, they should also be allowed to own any firearm they choose within reason. Just because something looks foreboding is no reason to outlaw it. The AWB as it was written is unacceptable. Everyone advocating for this should really do a little research and a little soul searching and ask yourself is it really worth the loss of freedom? I think it's really ironic that most people advocating gun control is also the people that lament the most about the Patriot Act. You want to completely remove the 2nd Amendment rights from someone with no hope of ever regaining while at the same time your lamenting about a little inconvenience of your own right to privacy. It really doesn't make much sense.

OpieCunningham

That is precisely the focus of the debate. What is "within reason"?

matteo101

Sweet, now that I know this I can go buy some guns.

Big Cholla

"Assault Rifle" is a misnomer. There is no such thing. "Assault Weapon" is a small handy weapon that is either full-auto or controlled burst and is usually chambered for a pistol cartridge. The Assault Rifle Ban was concocted by Diane Finestein, Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schummer strickly to create the impression for their liberal constituency that they had the ability to make a meaningful contribution to reduction of crime that involved large capacity weapons. Their concocted law fastened on to "deadly looking black guns with identifiable features" that the liberal controlled media could make the public believe made the fireams much more dangerous than normal. The AWB law did absolutely no good whatsoever in disarming the criminal in the USA. They don't use those guns and never will. A few certifiable crazies have used a semi-auto rifle to commit horrendous acts and at least two certifiable crazies used full-autos to try to rob a bank. But then more than a few certifiable crazies have used autos, airplanes, knives, chemicals and explosives to commit horrendous acts too. There are a couple of occasions that good guys have used legally owned full-autos to thwart crimes. There are many instances of good guys using semi-auto rifles to protect their loved ones and/or their businesses.

Let's lay it on the line, all firearms are dangerous. That is what they are supposed to be. The Founding Fathers of our country knew that any form of established government evolves over passage of time. They knew that usually the established government becomes more oppressive rather than more benign. The 2nd Amendment was placed in the Bill of Rights strictly so that we the people would have a starting place in the future to overthrow that oppressive government. I know the argument to come...People with little rifles cannot hope to overthrow a big government equiped with war planes, tanks, artillery, etc............Wrong! If there are enough willing people with little rifles, the government's big weaponry will be taken and turned a bit at a time. Do you think that the Iraqi people were armed under Saddam? Small weapons plus the very important Stinger missle were furnished to the unarmed Afganis. Look at the result. The USSR got its hat handed to it and kicked out. But I digress......... I fear the government that fears me to be armed.

There are about 2 million felons incarcerated in the USA at this time. When asked,to a felon, they say the thing that they feared most when they were outside and commiting their crimes was to run up against an armed citizen. Obviously, not enough of us were armed. I am career law enforcement and I believe that every law abiding able bodied person in the USA should be carrying the weapon of their choice, be well trained in its use and the law governing said use. If that weapon is a black rifle with a collapsing stock, box magazine with more than 10 rounds, a pistol grip and a flash hider...........so be it.

Mojo_PeiPei

"And remember guns don't kill people, dangerous minorities do."

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Lebell

Actually, there is such a thing as an assault rifle...the army uses them every day.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Big Cholla

I have to disagree. The M-16 is a "Main Battle Rifle" and is not an "Assault Rifle". I bet most anti-gunners only see the black color. The US military does not carry a listing for "Assault Rifle". They can assault an enemy with anything from the 5.56 mm/M-16 caliber thru the thermo nuclear bomb. They are all offensive weapons. Some are pretty good defensive weapons too.

The_Dunedan

Technically speaking, the M-16 is an "Assault Rifle" or "Assault Carbine." A Main Battle Rifle is a semiautomatic or select-fire weapon capable of striking an instantly-incapacitating blow, over iron sights, at 600 yards, and penetrating battlefield cover at the same range. Such weapons are usually .30 calibre, and include the FN-FAL, M1A, M14, G3/HK91, and M1.
Assault Rifles/Carbines are select-fire weapons capable of striking an instantly-incapacitating blow at 200-300 yards, although they may score hits at much longer ranges. They use an intermediate-power cartridge such as the 5.56mm, 5.45mm, and 7.62x39mm, which can penetrate battlefield cover to perhaps 300 yards range, typically. The M-16, AK-series, and Steyr AUG are good examples here.

Sorry to seem so picky, but the entire "Assault Weapons" debate is basically semantic, so I think it's important to have the terms straight.

smooth

There are 2 million incarcerated individuals.

They don't claim to be afraid of citizens who are armed--at least not in my personal life experiences and not in any interviews I've been on either side of.

What they will say is that if they meet an individual with a weapon that person is more likely to be harmed when the violence escalates--and the numbers bear that out.



Also, fully auto weapons aren't illegal. [surprised Lebell didn't catch that one--chalk it up to being tired of correcting all the misconceptions or maybe just didn't see it ] But they are heavily regulated and, I understand, very expensive.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Big Cholla

Check out this link to "Gun Myths"; http://www.duke.edu/~gnsmith/articles/myths.htm. Felons interviewed stated that they feared the armed citizen more than the police. No valid unbiased study shows that a citizen using a firearm for selfprotection is more apt to by hurt by the firearm than the assailant.

Ok, I misstated a stat that I had only partly memorized. There are about 2 million incarcerated felons in the US right now. But, there are about 6.9 million that are under control of the Prison Systems, i.e. parolees, probationioners, house arrests and a few other minor categories. A very scary figure if one takes into consideration that those are only the ones that got caught and prosecuted.

Also, check out a study by Dr. Gary Kleck on statistical analysis of firearm uses in the US. He started out as a confirmed anti-gunner, but did the analysis strickly on the level with no agenda creep and became an avid proponet of personal firearm ownership being convinced by his own statistics.

smooth

I read your link: only 1,026 felons answered that they were more fearful of an armed citizen over a police officer.

less than .0005 percent of the prison population for those who didn't want to determine the proportion of 1,026 is of 2,000,000 inmates.

I don't know how to address your second statement because it is false, and I have no idea how you ascertained it other than your personal opinion.

Kleck's studies have been dissected by his peers--and did not hold up well at all. I don't agree with your assertion regarding his political beliefs before he conducted the disputed studies--his views before and after are and were quite well known in the academic community.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Lebell

I can't recall ever seeing work referenced that discredits Kleck's work, but I'm certainly willing to look at it.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

smooth

I provided them in the past from paid services and asked people to give me references if they wanted me to dig some studies up for their side of the debate.

I'm not interested in gun control. I was going to ask the visiting prof from Berkeley who consistently sits across from Lott (Frank Zimring), but he turned out to be not very, ah, personable . Yeah, that's the polite way to put it.

But the offer stands, if you have a peer reviewed study that you want to reference and make known, give me the citation and I'll pull it up--but I'm not going to dig around and prove a case of point I'm not interested in contesting. But I did do this--I don't come in here thinking I know the full ramifications of gun control and posting my credentials while trying to convince people away from your position.

Anything I've said is a parroting of people I trust who have done primary research. Zimring, asshole that he may be, is tops in the business. So I trust him in forming my personal opinion--but refrain from claiming a criminological truth. Ya know?

But you'll notice that, out of respect for the secondary and tertiary research (I don't know of you doing interviews that would rise to primary research) you've conducted, I don't usually post replies concering the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of gun control measures. So I hope you'll notice that I haven't done that. But the reason is that I don't want to spend research time on a question I don't necessarily care about too much--so I attempt to limit my responses in that regard.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

adysav

Dragging up old stuff but I'm not American so I can only respond to points I know anything about

Death by firearms could be reduced to zero by not owning a firearm. Preventing death by water is a wildly different and wholely unreasonable request. You could always not have buckets or a bathtub, but it's still possible for a young child to drown in a couple of inches of water. An outright ban on liquids might be effective though...

Link

MSD

How many of those 2,000,000 are felons? (Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that you have argued that most prison overcrowding is due to nonviolent drug offenders.) How many felons from the nationwide convicted felon population were asked to respond? (I doubt it's all of them) How many of those felons committed a violent crime in which someone may have felt the need to defend himself? (There isn't always a good Samaritan around to try to defend his/her fellow man/woman) How many of them were arrested by the police? (all of them) How many were confronted by an armed citizen? (a lot less than all)

While I understand what you're trying to say, I think you're saying it based on a gut reaction and basing it on a gross oversimplification of facts. I'd like for you to at least consider this before completely disimissing the argument as being statistically insignificant.

smooth

I wasn't arguing that the results were statistically insignificant. Someone quoted a study as evidence that the majority of incarcerated individuals responded that they were more afraid of armed citizens than police officers.

I read the linked study and the researchers' sample size was 1,800 incarcerated people. Their results were statistically significant, but their sample size was too small.

Most prisoners are incarcerated due to non-violent drug offenses. That wouldn't negate my point, but rather tend to bolster it since the argument resting on their responses is implying that armed citizens thwart violent crime.

The study didn't explain its sampling method, so I can't comment on most of your queries. Suffice to say, I'm not dismissing out of hand due to anything. It's not my responsibility to accept studies until they've demonstrated validity and reliability. If you choose to accept a study that is based on shoddy techniques, go ahead. But the results of that study were inconclusive, at best.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Big Cholla

I believe that ALL prisoners in state and federal prisons are "felons". Some are in for commitment of a non-violent crime and some are in for commitment of one or more violent crimes. I have worked in maximum and medium security prisons. The violent crime criminals that I associated with were not reluctant to admit being more concerned of meeting up with the armed citizen than the police. For many years, armed citizens in the US kill or wound by shooting far more criminals in the act than all police combined. Police have so many restrictions on actually shooting a suspect that they usually err on the side of not shooting. The criminals know that.

I state again; "no valid study proves that a citizen is more apt to be killed or wounded if armed with his own weapon than he is confronting an armed criminal while being unarmed." That is supported by studies from Kleck and Lott both. The liberals want it to be true that the good guy is usually hurt/killed so bad that they continue to throw up statistics from a long ago discredited study that was skewed by its own bias. It is also my opinion, coming from an older law enforcement officer with lots of experience in training civilians for firearm and legal qualification to meet CCW requirements, that armed citizens are far safer in dealing with criminal opponents than unarmed citizens. Heck, everything writen here is a form of the writer's opinion and is a form of editorializing. I don't see the need to back up every statement by referencing a scientific based study. But, I will in the future to keep ruffled feathers down to a minimum, start every post with "IMHO".

One last point. Under commonly accepted statistical analysis procedures, a sample of 1800 to 2000 interviews randomly done within an identifiable set of 2,000,000 is valid enough to a determinable plus/minus factor of error. True even when that set includes every eligible voter within the USA. Just ask the AP, Zogby, Pew, TIME, AP-Ipsos, etc., etc. when they doing polling on political issues if they believe that a sample of 1800 to 2000 from that set is adequate to insure viable statistics.

IMHO liberals want to be allowed to use the weakest sort of generated statistics against conservative positions, but don't want conservatives to to be allowed to use repeatable statistical studys at all in their arguments. That is ok with me. I would much rather use empirical observations to base my opinion on anyway.

smooth

Where are you coming up with this stuff?

The study is on a personal webpage of a student of Duke university. It was 'published' by the NRA.

There is no mention of the sampling error, the methodology, nor the survey apparatus.

This study is bunk science unless you can show me where it was peer reviewed by other criminologists who have examined the issues I raised.

You have no way of knowing whether 1800 was enough to approach acceptable error. You base your comments off Zogby polls? They go through careful calculations do determine the sample size--it's not adequate to assume that for every Y population size, X sample size will do.

You didn't mention it, so I assume you may not be aware, that the criminal population, not being a "known" size, presents incredible problems to the researcher. Those problems have to be explained how they were addressed in the study.

Anecdotal evidence aside, you are attesting to the validity and reliability of a study you haven't read--merely the synopsis. Then you claim it in here as fact--it isn't. Assuming it were found to be valid, it would still need to be conducted again by another researcher to determine it's reliability. These are first year method's research points--I'm not making it up do to some 'liberal bias.' And I certainly didn't cite any other studies of my own and try to twist them to scare the TFP public. I'm just rankled because you keep stating study this and study that because they support your personal experiences and beliefs--not because of their scientific accuracy.

And I'm just about sure that you can guess what I think about convicts' discussions with screws--they were probably real truthful with you.

Oh shit, I just re-read the line you keep hinging your comment on. It does not claim that convicts are more afraid of armed citizens than police. It says that "57% felt that the typical criminal feared being shot by citizens more than he feared being shot by police."

That means that they were making statements about how others felt--not themselves. Most respondents, not just cons, are willing to guestimate what they think other people feel, without ascribing that belief to themselves. What we don't know, because the study doesn't tell us, is whether the cons answered that they believed most people were afraid of armed citizens, but that they weren't, which would follow the pattern of how people normally answer those sensitive questions (fear is a sensitive topic, especially in prison, which is only one of the reasons I'd be skeptical of a convict telling a screw how he or she was afraid of something on the street) during interviews.

So, at best, you have a study which states that convicts feel that the majority of other prisoners were more afraid of armed citizens than police officers--since we don't know how afraid they are of police initially (possibly squat, so 'more' afraid could be squat + 1), that answer doesn't really say very much does it?

And I didn't even address whether "more scared" translates into "deters behavior." I'm hoping that I don't have to dredge out proof that a scared person is more likely to do something stupid than rational. Based on what I've read in peer review journals, if I ever find myself with a gun to my temple with a hopped up junkie demanding my wallet and watch, the last thing I'm going to want to do is scare him. I want him to feel as comfortable and in control of me as possible. I don't want to infringe on his sense of control over the situation or give him any reason to go off the hook. I'm actually shocked that a practicing LEO wouldn't attest to that reality because I know that kind of awareness is taught in negotiation courses for the enforcement agencies down here in Southern California.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Big Cholla

IMHO it is taught to not let the hop head get that close in the first place. It is called situational awareness. It is also taught that the best gun fight is one that one never let happen. You can what if the statistics and hypothetical situations all you want to support your position (just like I can) but, from years of experience I believe one is far better off to be armed and trained than not armed and complacent.

smooth

I respect your belief of what is best for yourself based on your personal experiences.

It also sounds like we fundamentally agree that the best gun fight is one that never happens.

There you go, BC, that wasn't so hard was it

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

SJS111567

That may be true for the person who purchases a firearm and a box of ammo, and thinks they are ready to repel an intruder. Just like any other tool and skill, firearms and self defense require training. I have been in the unfortunate situation of being forced to repel home invaders in the past. No children in my house were caught in the cross fire, and no innocent neighbors were shot by armor piercing ammo. Why? Because I practice my skills with my firearms, and I use the appropriate tool (firearm and ammo type) for the job.

Net result of above mentioned home invasion? One dead intruder and two severely wounded intruders laying on the floor in various locations in my home when the police showed up (10 minutes after the 911 call to report said home invasion and shoot out).

__________________
Gun Control - The difference between Lexington Green and Tianemen Square.

Grizzley91

I own a gun. I hunt. But as an American History teacher, I also feel compelled to address the Constitutional issue which gun advocates love to cite.

First, the 2nd Amendment refers specifically to the need for a well-regulated militia. NRA-ers regularly disregard this qualifiying clause.

Second, I feel that it's important to consider why they found a well-regulated militia so important. Was it to overthrow the government? No, they'd just created that government, so they didn't want it thrown. Their mechanism for drastic political change was the idea of an amendable Constitution, not armed rebellion against the constitutionally elected government. Was it because they were fearful of another invasion by the British (or some other ambitious European power)? That explanation makes since if America is a fledgeling power in the late 18th Century, but not if America is the world's most militaristic super-power. And anyway, that wasn't why they included the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights. The real reason for the 2nd Amendment was that the Southern States required it.

Now let's think about possible reasons why the Southern states would have required a fast-response, locally-based, quasi-military force to keep the security. That's right, give youself a cookie if you guessed slave-rebellions. There were millions of slaves, and they rebelled with some frequency, so the Whites lived in terror of the thought of marauding Blacks murdering the Masters and raping the young Misses.

Check the historical sources (start with James Madison, who actually composed the 2nd Amendment), and you'll see that I am right. Then debate whether or not gun-control works 'til you're blue in the face. But leave my Constitution out of it.

The_Dunedan

Grizzley;


In the parlance of 1798, "well-regulated" meant "In proper order" or "Functioning properly," not "Controlled by rules or authority." In the context of the 2A, this could be translated as "A Militia in proper order, being nessescary..." The "qualifying clause" is grammatically subordinate: in other words, the second part of the sentance is the one that matters...that bit about "shall not be infringed."

Second: the Militia Act defines the Unreglulated Militia as all persons between 17 and 45, capable of bearing arms, who are not members of the Nat'l Gaurd. This means that anyone between 17-45 is protected -absolutely- by the 2A. See section 311, USC.

Thirdly: I suggest you read up on your Jefferson. He made it -quite- clear that the reason for the existance of the 2A was to provide for the overthrow of a tyrannical, out-of-control government. He advises that "the people are never to be debarred the use of Arms," among other tidbits. Washington, Burr, and most of the other Founders agreed with him on this.

Fourthly, to rebut your "Racist 2A" nonsense, I suggest the following essay:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?ID=916
"The Racist Roots of Gun Control"
I should also like to see some sources for your "southern states required it" statement. As the essay above makes clear, many slave states ( including some in the North, btw ) objected to the text of the 2A, on the grounds that it would allow freedmen to arm themselves. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that only Southern states owned slaves: read up on Maryland sometime, willya?

Fifthly, please consult the case of Miller vs US, in which the SCOTUS decided that any "militia suitable" weapon, that is any weapon suitable for military use, was protected by the 2A and that it's posession, therefore, could not be infringed upon FOR ANY REASON.

I am sorry if this comes off as a flame, but for a member of my own profession, teaching the impressionable young, to be so ignorant is inexcusable. This is either an apalling lapse in your own education or deliberate ignorance, and I have difficulty deciding which.