Trayvon Martin

[Bocefish]

Anyway the fact is, a FMJ round is less likely to deviate once it hits resistance, and more likely to pass through.

Wrong again.



For some seriously graphic evidence of what a 5.56 FMJ round can do http://www.zombiehunters.org/forum/view ... 2505fd7d56

 

[Jupiter551]

the jist of it is, if soldiers are going to shoot each other the least they could do is not use ammo calculated to cause the highest and most serious casualty rate.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You know you come off as really condescending right? What exactly are you laughing about anyway? I was talking about international treaties to limit particularly brutal weapons in wars. There seems to be a trend among Americans for thumbing their nose at the Geneva Convention like you have been with the UN, but in times when you didn't feel so morally and technologically superior your country realised it's there to protect YOUR soldiers too.

I'm not wrong about FMJ ammo having higher piercing and less expansion than JHP, 5.56 nato might be an FMJ round but it doesn't share the characteristics of all FMJ rounds, besides which ALL expanding ammunition is considerably more fatal than MOST fully jacketed ammo.

The following, agreed almost 150 years ago, is still in effect today and explains in plain logic to some of the more reptilian-minded among us why despite being the current power of the month, it is still barbaric and contrary to advanced civilisation to use some weapons in war.

Laws of War :
Declaration of St. Petersburg; November 29 1868
On the proposition of the Imperial Cabinet of Russia, an International Military Commission having assembled at St. Petersburg in order to examine into the expediency of forbidding the use of certain in times of war between civilized nations, and that Commission, having by common agreement fixed the technical limits at which the necessities of war ought to yield to the requirements of humanity, the undersigned are authorized by the orders of their Governments to declare as follows:

Considering that the progress of civilization should have the effect of alleviating as much as possible the calamities of war:

That the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forges of the enemy;

That for this purpose it is sufficient to disable the greatest possible number of men;

That this object would be exceeded by the employment of arms which uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or render their death inevitable;

That the employment of such arms would, therefore, be contrary to the laws of humanity;

The Contracting Parties engage mutually to renounce, in case of war among themselves, the employment by their military or naval troops of any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances.

They will invite all the States which have not taken part in the deliberations of the International Military Commission assembled at St. Petersburg, by sending Delegates thereto, to accede to the present engagement.

This engagement is obligatory only upon the Contracting or Acceding Parties thereto, in case of war between two or more of themselves; it is not applicable with regard to Non-Contracting Parties, or Parties who shall not have acceded to it.

It will also cease to be obligatory from the moment when, in a war between Contracting or Acceding Parties, a Non-Contracting Party or a Non-Acceding Party shall join one of the belligerents.

The Contracting or Acceding Parties reserve to themselves to come hereafter to an understanding whenever a precise proposition shall be drawn up in view of future improvements which science may effect in the armament of troops, in order to maintain the principles which they have established, and to conciliate the necessities of war with the laws of humanity.

 

[SoTxBob]

Experts everywhere....

 

[Bocefish]

the jist of it is, if soldiers are going to shoot each other the least they could do is not use ammo calculated to cause the highest and most serious casualty rate.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You know you come off as really condescending right? What exactly are you laughing about anyway? I was talking about international treaties to limit particularly brutal weapons in wars. There seems to be a trend among Americans for thumbing their nose at the Geneva Convention like you have been with the UN, but in times when you didn't feel so morally and technologically superior your country realised it's there to protect YOUR soldiers too.

I was laughing my ass off and thinking of some anti-gun person suggesting that soldiers shooting at each other should be limited to paintballs or air-soft ammo. :lol: :lol: :lol:

The Geneva Convention would be fine if all persons involved followed it, but that is FAR from reality. You're the one that brought the war subject up and argued the ballistics of FMJ rounds. I was simply correcting your FACT errors again, perhaps I didn't do it delicately enough for you.

FMJ pistol rounds do not fragment like high velocity rifle rounds and are not practical for home defense, period. They can and do pass through the target and continue through plaster walls into other rooms or apartments. In close quarter combat, HPs are far more practical and effective.

 

[Shaun__]

Well no, hollow-point and similar rounds are prohibited from use in war because they're designed to cause maximum trauma and/or death. Obviously, no bullet is nice to get shot with but the jist of it is, if soldiers are going to shoot each other the least they could do is not use ammo calculated to cause the highest and most serious casualty rate.

If you wanted to make war less lethal you would use paintball guns, not switch to non-expanding ammo. I apologize if I am wrong, but I think you are an Australian. Australia is one of Americas best allies, and was very valuable in Afghanistan. You should find one of your returning soldiers and explain how it is not nice to use the most effective bullets when under heavy fire from the Taliban. I think his views on this will be very different. He probably wanted a longer ranged, and larger caliber round if anything. I am not a gun nut or anything, but hollow point rounds are perfectly reasonable to use for self defense. If you did not want to kill your opponent you might try Glaser safety slugs instead.

 

[Jupiter551]

I'm not saying ammo used in war should be less lethal, but some weapons are still considered too brutal for war. The objective is to put down or disable the enemy, not make even a non-lethal shot fragment or expand so the victim dies or is permanently crippled.

 

[Shaun__]

The objective is to put down or disable the enemy, not make even a non-lethal shot fragment or expand so the victim dies or is permanently crippled.

War between "civilized" countries has all kinds of rules, but in the end it is usually one poor person killing another poor person because a rich person told them to.

 

[Harvrath]

I'm not saying ammo used in war should be less lethal, but some weapons are still considered too brutal for war. The objective is to put down or disable the enemy, not make even a non-lethal shot fragment or expand so the victim dies or is permanently crippled.

These are not the .22 Caliber squirrel gun your daddy may have let you shoot. These are rifles that send bullets weighing anywhere from 55 grains to 800 grains at velocities close to 3,000 FPS. There is no way to make them Humane. The impact energy is measured in thousands of joules, in some cases that impact energy exceeds 10K joules. There is no Humane ammunition for them.

Even if they don't tumble, fragment or expand the energy transfer is capable of killing or maiming.

 

[Bocefish]

War between "civilized" countries has all kinds of rules, but in the end it is usually one poor person killing another poor person because a rich person told them to.

I'm sure Pat Tillman gave up his millions just to follow some rich guy's directives. That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there. :naughty:

These guys must have done it for the money too:

 

[Bocefish]

Small arms warfare will change forever once the XM25 is mass produced by 2015 anyway.

 

[Shaun__]

War between "civilized" countries has all kinds of rules, but in the end it is usually one poor person killing another poor person because a rich person told them to.

I'm sure Pat Tillman gave up his millions just to follow some rich guy's directives. That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there. :naughty:

These guys must have done it for the money too:

The military is primarily made up of lower income people in most countries. Cherry picking one or two people out of mix who come from well off families will never change things. Your stupid ass devil advocate has never impressed me anyways. You normally state some half assed claim like I said people only fight for money and run with it. If you want to prove me wrong show me proof over half the military in the world is made up of upper middle class or higher people.

 

[Bocefish]

The military is primarily made up of lower income people in most countries. Cherry picking one or two people out of mix who come from well off families will never change things. Your stupid ass devil advocate has never impressed me anyways. You normally state some half assed claim like I said people only fight for money and run with it. If you want to prove me wrong show me proof over half the military in the world is made up of upper middle class or higher people.

I know plenty of well off military people. Painting everyone with one brush was offensive to those who serve their country for reasons other than income. Attitudes like yours is why I wish the draft would be re-instated.

 

[Shaun__]

The military is primarily made up of lower income people in most countries. Cherry picking one or two people out of mix who come from well off families will never change things. Your stupid ass devil advocate has never impressed me anyways. You normally state some half assed claim like I said people only fight for money and run with it. If you want to prove me wrong show me proof over half the military in the world is made up of upper middle class or higher people.

I know plenty of well off military people. Painting everyone with one brush was offensive to those who serve their country for reasons other than income. Attitudes like yours is why I wish the draft would be re-instated.

I told you to stop saying I said people served for money. Why don't you stop painting poor people as greedy with your broad brush hypocrite. I joined the Navy when I was 19 to protect people dumb ass, I also failed in it, but I did try.

 

[Bocefish]

The military is primarily made up of lower income people in most countries. Cherry picking one or two people out of mix who come from well off families will never change things. Your stupid ass devil advocate has never impressed me anyways. You normally state some half assed claim like I said people only fight for money and run with it. If you want to prove me wrong show me proof over half the military in the world is made up of upper middle class or higher people.

I know plenty of well off military people. Painting everyone with one brush was offensive to those who serve their country for reasons other than income. Attitudes like yours is why I wish the draft would be re-instated.

I told you to stop saying I said people served for money. Why don't you stop painting poor people as greedy with your broad brush hypocrite. I joined the Navy when I was 19 to protect people dumb ass, I also failed in it, but I did try.

I don't understand how you think I'm painting poor people as greedy?

I just quoted what you wrote, maybe I misinterpreted it.

War between "civilized" countries has all kinds of rules, but in the end it is usually one poor person killing another poor person because a rich person told them to.

To me, that sounded like you were calling the vast majority of our military poor and only enlisted because they needed the income from joining the military. :dontknow:

The Truth About Who Fights for Us (Military Demographics show that only 11% are from poorest group)
Wall Street Journal ^ | 09/27/2011 | Ann Marlowe
Posted on Tue Sep 27 2011 15:03:31 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by SeekAndFind

It should no more be necessary to write this article than to prove that there were Jews killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. And yet the mythology refuses to die. Just last week, two well-educated and well-known writer acquaintances of mine remarked in passing on the "fact" that those who serve in the U.S. military typically have no other career options. America's soldiers, they said, were poor and black.

They don't mean this to denigrate their service—no, they mean it as a critique of American society, which turns its unemployed into cannon fodder. Especially today with high unemployment, the charge goes, hapless youths we fail to educate are embarking on a one-way trip to Afghanistan.

These allegations—most frequently leveled at the Army, the military's biggest service and the one with the highest casualty rate—are false.

In 2008, using data provided by the Defense Department, the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that "these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years."

Indeed, the Heritage report showed that "low-income families are underrepresented in the military and high-income families are overrepresented. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans who are age 18-24 years old but only 10.6 percent of the 2006 recruits and 10.7 percent of the 2007 recruits. Individuals in the top two quintiles make up 40.0 percent of the population, but 49.3 percent of the recruits in both years."

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2784508/posts

 

[Shaun__]

I don't understand how you think I'm painting poor people as greedy?

I just quoted what you wrote, maybe I misinterpreted it.
To me, that sounded like you were calling the vast majority of our military poor and only enlisted because they needed the income from joining the military. :dontknow:

I said poor people make up the bulk of the military, and you started saying I was saying people were fighting for money. There is no other way to interpret your words. You tied poor people with greed, with no help from me. I stated no reason for their service. You also keep cherry picking facts. You started with one rich dude who served, to several military people you know who are well off, to 25 percent of the military enlistees for one year coming from well off families. That last one seems to imply 75 percent did not.

Yet nowhere did I say anything about America in my posts either. Other countries have militaries you know.

 

[Bocefish]

I don't understand how you think I'm painting poor people as greedy?

I just quoted what you wrote, maybe I misinterpreted it.
To me, that sounded like you were calling the vast majority of our military poor and only enlisted because they needed the income from joining the military. :dontknow:

I said poor people make up the bulk of the military, and you started saying I was saying people were fighting for money. There is no other way to interpret your words. You tied poor people with greed, with no help from me. I stated no reason for their service. You also keep cherry picking facts. You started with one rich dude who served, to several military people you know who are well off, to 25 percent of the military enlistees for one year coming from well off families. That last one seems to imply 75 percent did not.

Yet nowhere did I say anything about America in my posts either. Other countries have militaries you know.

Other countries have military too?

Really??

Well blow me down. :lol: I was only talking about the U.S.

49.3% come from upper middle class or higher. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans. That leaves 29.7% for the lower middle class and middle class, which therefore proves the majority is upper middle class or higher.

Indeed, the Heritage report showed that "low-income families are underrepresented in the military and high-income families are overrepresented. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans who are age 18-24 years old but only 10.6 percent of the 2006 recruits and 10.7 percent of the 2007 recruits. Individuals in the top two quintiles make up 40.0 percent of the population, but 49.3 percent of the recruits in both years."

I'm still at a complete loss how the greed part somehow got factored in. Anyone that enlists in the military for purposes of greed must know something I don't.

 

[Shaun__]

I don't understand how you think I'm painting poor people as greedy?

I just quoted what you wrote, maybe I misinterpreted it.
To me, that sounded like you were calling the vast majority of our military poor and only enlisted because they needed the income from joining the military. :dontknow:

I said poor people make up the bulk of the military, and you started saying I was saying people were fighting for money. There is no other way to interpret your words. You tied poor people with greed, with no help from me. I stated no reason for their service. You also keep cherry picking facts. You started with one rich dude who served, to several military people you know who are well off, to 25 percent of the military enlistees for one year coming from well off families. That last one seems to imply 75 percent did not.

Yet nowhere did I say anything about America in my posts either. Other countries have militaries you know.

Other countries have military too?

Really??

Well blow me down. :lol: I was only talking about the U.S.

49.3% come from upper middle class or higher. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans. That leaves 29.7% for the lower middle class and middle class, which therefore proves the majority is upper middle class or higher.

29.7 + 20 = 49.7

49.7 > 49.3

Also why do you keep dragging the US military into this? Once again your own facts backed up my claim, but I was talking about all of the armed forces in the world.

I'm still at a complete loss how the greed part somehow got factored in. Anyone that enlists in the military for purposes of greed must know something I don't.

That is what YOU accused me of saying. You are clearly incapable of having adult discussions without hijacking the topic to a narrow little path you choose.

 

[Nordling]

Wait, wtf? You're saying about HALF of our armed forces is made ups of UPPER MIDDLE CLASS people?

Upper middle class is like doctors, lawyers, engineers.

I don't believe it.

 

[Bocefish]

Why don't you stop painting poor people as greedy with your broad brush hypocrite. I joined the Navy when I was 19 to protect people dumb ass, I also failed in it, but I did try.

I don't understand how you think I'm painting poor people as greedy?

I just quoted what you wrote, maybe I misinterpreted it.
To me, that sounded like you were calling the vast majority of our military poor and only enlisted because they needed the income from joining the military. :dontknow:

I said poor people make up the bulk of the military, and you started saying I was saying people were fighting for money. There is no other way to interpret your words. You tied poor people with greed, with no help from me.

I'm still at a complete loss how the greed part somehow got factored in. Anyone that enlists in the military for purposes of greed must know something I don't.

That is what YOU accused me of saying. You are clearly incapable of having adult discussions without hijacking the topic to a narrow little path you choose.

Your attempt to conjure up things that aren't there is truly amazing.

 

[Harvrath]

You cannot treat all the different military forces of the world as one entity. That is using a Broad Brush.

Some countries still practice some form of conscription. Some countries have a more robust and stringent class system than others where officers come from a certain economic class and Enlisted and Non-Commissioned Officers from the lower classes. There are some some countries that only allow people that are in the good graces of the government to serve in uniform or serve in particular roles (Enlisted versus Officer). Still others don't have a military that could be recognized as such.

And if you look at the Demographics of the US Military they need to be compared to the Demographics of the US as a whole to see if anything is out of line.

 

[Shaun__]

Harvrath you have made 83 posts and 75 are in this one thread. What is your other account's username if I may ask? I assume you have one, because most normal people would have at least strayed to another thread occasionally.

 

[Jupiter551]

You'd also need to look at infantry, claims that poorer people populate armies (right or wrong I don't know) are generally made about infantry grunts, not engineers, pilots, navigators or the thousand other non-combat roles that make a military force.

These are not the .22 Caliber squirrel gun your daddy may have let you shoot. These are rifles that send bullets weighing anywhere from 55 grains to 800 grains at velocities close to 3,000 FPS. There is no way to make them Humane. The impact energy is measured in thousands of joules, in some cases that impact energy exceeds 10K joules. There is no Humane ammunition for them.

Even if they don't tumble, fragment or expand the energy transfer is capable of killing or maiming.

Wanna stop talking down to me? Thanks. I haven't shot 5.56mm but I've shot 7.62 55 grain ammo, which is beside the point but since you apparently tried to belittle me by suggesting I've only shot a 22...
No one said the rounds should be lethal or entirely humane, just that it is against war conventions to use certain weapons that are considered to be unnecessarily brutal. For instance using chemical weapons, incendiary weapons, and - as it happens - expanding bullets. What exactly are you arguing? Not one person here said FMJ are non-lethal or humane, simply that soft or hollow-point ammunition is illegal to use in war. Because it's considered brutal. Fuck, if you want to argue it go to the Hague and picket outside the War Crimes Tribunal? idgaf.

 

[Bocefish]

I don't understand how you think I'm painting poor people as greedy?

I just quoted what you wrote, maybe I misinterpreted it.
To me, that sounded like you were calling the vast majority of our military poor and only enlisted because they needed the income from joining the military. :dontknow:

I said poor people make up the bulk of the military, and you started saying I was saying people were fighting for money. There is no other way to interpret your words. You tied poor people with greed, with no help from me. I stated no reason for their service. You also keep cherry picking facts. You started with one rich dude who served, to several military people you know who are well off, to 25 percent of the military enlistees for one year coming from well off families. That last one seems to imply 75 percent did not.

Yet nowhere did I say anything about America in my posts either. Other countries have militaries you know.

Other countries have military too?

Really??

Well blow me down. :lol: I was only talking about the U.S.

49.3% come from upper middle class or higher. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans. That leaves 29.7% for the lower middle class and middle class, which therefore proves the majority is upper middle class or higher.

29.7 + 20 = 49.7

49.7 > 49.3

Also why do you keep dragging the US military into this? Once again your own facts backed up my claim, but I was talking about all of the armed forces in the world.

The facts contradict your claim unless you consider the middle class as poor.

I'm still at a complete loss how the greed part somehow got factored in. Anyone that enlists in the military for purposes of greed must know something I don't.

That is what YOU accused me of saying. You are clearly incapable of having adult discussions without hijacking the topic to a narrow little path you choose.

The only place I remotely mentioned anything about fighting for money was in reference to the Wounded Warrior Project and that was total sarcasm. Apparently, that went over your head and was assumed as them being greedy, losing their limbs for a paycheck and all.

 

[bud9752]

I think you 3 are confusing the use and meaning of the word poor. It has more than one meaning ie. Poor as in an individual that does NOT have a large amount of money/wealth AND Poor as in the UNLUCKY individual who is on the receiving end of any unwanted bad situation.
PLEASE STOP ARGUING ABOUT ONE ANOTHER'S INTERPRETATIONS of situations or actions. If you don't understand an individuals meaning of their POST, ask about what THEY mean instead of assuming (making an ass out of you and me - ass-u-me), clarification will go a long way to eliminate these long drawn out petty arguments about who is putting their words (interpretation) onto someone else's post.
:twocents-02cents:
Thank you

 

[Bocefish]

Good point. That's why I asked several times to clarify the greed accusations. As far as poor... if people need government assistance for basic necessities I would consider them monetarily poor. I assumed poor was in reference to money.

 

[Harvrath]

Harvrath you have made 83 posts and 75 are in this one thread. What is your other account's username if I may ask? I assume you have one, because most normal people would have at least strayed to another thread occasionally.

I read other threads. I've prepared to post on them and start threads and decided against it. For instance, I was prepared to start a thread where I drop a big massive Deuce on Bioware and EA for Mass Effect 3 in the video-game forum but I decided the dedicated Mass Effect website I go to would be better, worse damn money I ever spent.

I frequent about 20 news-sites, Blogs and Forums on a weekly-basis, I'm all over the place. I was lurking here until someone posted in my areas of interest.

 

[Shaun__]

The facts contradict your claim unless you consider the middle class as poor.

You said the upper middle class and the rich made up the majority of the us army. I added up the remaining percentages and proved you wrong.

The only place I remotely mentioned anything about fighting for money was in reference to the Wounded Warrior Project and that was total sarcasm. Apparently, that went over your head and was assumed as them being greedy, losing their limbs for a paycheck and all.

You implied I was saying people were fighting for money. You keep bringing greed back into this over and over. You are not getting any more responses in this thread from me. I always assumed you were kind of trollish, but you can not even make interesting arguments for me to argue with you about.

Harvrath you have made 83 posts and 75 are in this one thread. What is your other account's username if I may ask? I assume you have one, because most normal people would have at least strayed to another thread occasionally.

I read other threads. I've prepared to post on them and start threads and decided against it. For instance, I was prepared to start a thread where I drop a big massive Deuce on Bioware and EA for Mass Effect 3 in the video-game forum but I decided the dedicated Mass Effect website I go to would be better, worse damn money I ever spent.

I frequent about 20 news-sites, Blogs and Forums on a weekly-basis, I'm all over the place. I was lurking here until someone posted in my areas of interest.

Nobody believes you are anything but an alt account. Actually in truth, nobody believes you are anything but a shity alt account. Most people would take more time developing the credentials of their alt. If you are a real person you make me look like the most interesting man alive.

 

[Bocefish]

:hello2: You didn't prove diddly squat aside from your weak reading comprehension, the facts speak for themselves and the facts proved you wrong.

The Truth About Who Fights for Us (Military Demographics show that only 11% are from poorest group)
Wall Street Journal ^ | 09/27/2011 | Ann Marlowe
Posted on Tue Sep 27 2011 15:03:31 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time) by SeekAndFind

It should no more be necessary to write this article than to prove that there were Jews killed in the World Trade Center on 9/11. And yet the mythology refuses to die. Just last week, two well-educated and well-known writer acquaintances of mine remarked in passing on the "fact" that those who serve in the U.S. military typically have no other career options. America's soldiers, they said, were poor and black.

They don't mean this to denigrate their service—no, they mean it as a critique of American society, which turns its unemployed into cannon fodder. Especially today with high unemployment, the charge goes, hapless youths we fail to educate are embarking on a one-way trip to Afghanistan.

These allegations—most frequently leveled at the Army, the military's biggest service and the one with the highest casualty rate—are false.

In 2008, using data provided by the Defense Department, the Heritage Foundation found that only 11% of enlisted military recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth, or quintile, of American neighborhoods (as of the 2000 Census), while 25% came from the wealthiest quintile. Heritage reported that "these trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40% of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods, a number that has increased substantially over the past four years."

Indeed, the Heritage report showed that "low-income families are underrepresented in the military and high-income families are overrepresented. Individuals from the bottom household income quintile make up 20.0 percent of Americans who are age 18-24 years old but only 10.6 percent of the 2006 recruits and 10.7 percent of the 2007 recruits. Individuals in the top two quintiles make up 40.0 percent of the population, but 49.3 percent of the recruits in both years."

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2784508/posts[/quote]

 

[sorrowfool]

Are you really trying to use http://www.freerepublic.com as a source? Why not link directly to the WSJ article. Which is a clearly stated opinion piece.

WASHINGTON - Most military recruits in the United States come from areas in which household income is lower than the national median, a non-profit group says.

Nearly two-thirds, 64 percent, of recruits to the military were from counties that have average incomes lower than the national median National Priorities Project said. The group looked at Department of Defense data for 2004.

According to NPP, 15 of the top 20 counties that had the highest numbers of recruits had higher poverty rates than the national average, and 18 of the top 20 had higher poverty rates than the state average.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,1 ... 70,00.html

Many of today's recruits are financially strapped, with nearly half coming from lower-middle-class to poor households, according to new Pentagon data based on Zip codes and census estimates of mean household income. Nearly two-thirds of Army recruits in 2004 came from counties in which median household income is below the U.S. median.

Such patterns are pronounced in such counties as Martinsville, Va., that supply the greatest number of enlistees in proportion to their youth populations. All of the Army's top 20 counties for recruiting had lower-than-national median incomes, 12 had higher poverty rates, and 16 were non-metropolitan, according to the National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group that analyzed 2004 recruiting data by Zip code.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 02528.html

Seems like anyone can pull statistics from their ass.

 

[Nordling]

Although pulling data out of one's butt and asserting that it's FACT is probably as old as humanity, I think Ronald Reagan was the first to do it so blatantly and rarely get called on it.

"Scientists are now re-thinking evolution and are putting it back on the shelf of failed theories." (paraphrase from memory but pretty much what he said) Just make up something and if you have loyal fans, they seem to lose all sense of skepticism. lol

"Trees cause more pollution than factories" was another one of his bizarre spewings. lol