ptatc

QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 10:55 PM) Now if you could read your posts of over a year ago and see if they differ. Last year's group was only 10 games better. Unfortunately being a baseball fan takes patience if you want to build a winner the right way. Ask any Cub's fan. The sox are in trouble then. I don't think they will spend spend 155 mil on a pitcher like the cubs did for Lester.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 04:57 PM) That's cool you have a neighbor looking out for you. I assume he was kidding with the "dumbf***" line. You must be good pals. Did u buy him a beer or cup of java for his protection? It's pretty much the whole neighborhood. We have Friday night get togethers every other week with a group of about 5-6 families. I did buy refreshments that week.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 03:56 PM) This might surprise some of you guys but Rongey's radio show down here is really good. I enjoy the hell out of it. Where is he?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 03:25 PM) I'm pretty paranoid, so I have cameras, an alarm and a shotgun as a last resort. I assume the minute I hear my alarm get triggered I will be able to unlock my safe, load a shell and cock that SOB loud enough to scare off whoever it is. My goal is to deter an intruder, no silently hunt them down and murder them in my home. I want every single thing to scare them off. Wow. I rarely lock my doors. I've actually gone to work and forgot to close my door. A neighbor called me at work and called me a dumbf**k and because he had to close my door. My wife wasn't too happy that day. Luckily, i had locked the dogs up that day.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) One thing to keep in mind with any sort of "mental illness treatment means no guns" law is that it will inevitably discourage some people who own guns from seeking mental health services. Guns are really, really important to some people. I don't know where that balance point on that particular issue is, though. no doubt.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 03:21 PM) Biometric safe is what I have. Nobody else has access. mine's a combination safe. But anyway to keep the easy access or most accidents from happening works.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 03:20 PM) Home defense! Some people go so far as to carry constantly even at home. Never know when someone is going to break into your suburban home in a gated community! That was actually what was at the heart of Heller. DC required all handguns to be stored in a secured or inoperable state, e.g. putting a lock on the trigger to prevent the gun from firing. Plaintiffs argued that this severely limited the gun's use for self-defense in the event of a home invasion. I know the arguments and to each his own but I just don't understand it. Of course, I've always chosen to live in very low crime areas. Not everyone has that option.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 03:17 PM) I'm pretty sure if you were able to guarantee all families would always be safe and no innocent person would ever be shot or harmed in any way, which obviously could never happen, all people would have to do is turn in every gun they owned, millions would refuse. Of course. I go back to the hunting/sport aspect. there would be no reason to turn the firearms in.

QUOTE (Chicago White Sox @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 03:03 PM) While I agree with what you’re saying, the vast majority of people will not get rid of theirs guns at home no matter what the data says. I've never understood the people who don't lock up their firearms in the house. Get a safe lock them up. That takes care of most of the issues.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 02:06 PM) They have trap shooting at OPCC, but im not much of a rifle guy quite yet, I've only trained with my 9MM and my shotgun. Anything has to be better than that tiny little BS range they have, its awful. I am nervous every minute that I am in there. Agreed. I rarely do anything but shotgun anymore just for that reason. Some of those indoor ranges make you feel like you are walking into a cult that the FBI is getting ready to raid.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) There are a lot of hunters out there... My point is that guns are one of the few things that we create that has the primary purpose of destroying things. I could probably name 100 other things that can be used to destroy something (drills, bats, hammers, cars, knifes, pencils) but they all have some other primary purpose. Guns simply do not. There are but there are limits. In target shooting there are not. We will go through 300 clays in 2 hours. Whereas deer will have a limit for just a few for the season or pheasant has a limit of 3 per day during a season. There is no season for trap.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:58 PM) Not a lot of places to practice on game around these parts... Gotta go squeeze into one of the horrible ranges. And they are horrific. Where that's where your environment plays a factor. Come down near Joliet on 55 and the state has free trap shooting ranges outdoor. If you want to hunt game they also do very cheap pheasant release in season for anyone with a license. I don't like in indoor ones at all.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:56 PM) Yeah, you can do better than that. I dont see how decoration changes from item to item. With your example, tobacco leaves can also be used that way. but I do like the similarities we are finding in edge use cases for guns and tobacco, they are becoming more and more similar by the moment. tobacco when used for it's intended use, can kill. So can firearms. However, firearms can also be used for targets which doesn't kill. I'm not sure how this discussion started but I would bet that there are more deaths in the US every year attributed to tobacco use than firearms. I could be wrong but the point being that some people have leisure activities that are dangerous. Both of these can be.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:53 PM) I hope to never ever ever have to aim mine at living things. There's no problem with that. I would bet that many more targets are destroyed than living things anyway, especially with limits for hunting.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:45 PM) What animal do you hunt with an AR-15? Deer, bear, moose anything for which a high powered rifle is needed. Again if you read thorough I'm in favor of eliminating the automatic weapons. But rifles are needed in many instances. Many of these being culling deer or coyotes which will over run crops and neighborhoods.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:50 PM) Biological research, producing oxygen, protein, biofuel.... Well I meant for things that they specifically used for. If you want to go that route, firearms have a decorative purpose for sitting above a fireplace or if cabinets.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:42 PM) When you boil it down, the only purpose guns have are to destroy things. The reasoning behind wanting to destroy something may change. Hunting, sport, defense, etc... but that is still their sole purpose. Sure but not living things. They are probably used more to destroy targets and clays more than living things.

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 01:39 PM) Tobacco is a plant, of course it has other purposes. What is it used for that doesn't get into the body in some form?

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 11:32 AM) Gun companies literally claim that guns dont kill people. Tobacco contributed to deaths, but the still have trouble directly correlating it to the ailness that it causes. Guns literally kill directly with zero other function. They are very comparable both from the perspective that they are not necessary in daily life and in that they were considered a huge part of the american fabric and economy. The only difference is that the tobacco industry cannot and was not able to hide behind an outdated Amendment. They only kill if aimed at a living being. When you use them for skeet/trap shooting there is no living being. Tobacco is only used by living being. Firearms have another purpose, tobacco does not.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 11:49 AM) If hunting/sport are the only real "other functions" for a gun that killing people, then why not only allow guns used for those? indy cars arent street legal...Funny cars arent street legal.... why are there guns that literally serve no purpose legal? Because you can any firearm for hunting or sport shooting. I'm not sure which ones you would exclude.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 03:36 PM) Part of it is that the hardcore gun people don't believe people calling for gun control are acting in good faith and that their end goal is 100% ban and confiscation. Give an inch, they'll take a mile, so they will screech and holler and scream against any and every regulation. Just go read any gun website/forum for a taste of the rhetoric. Even with this bump fire stock thing which many will freely admit are dumb and pointless and nobody really cares about them in particular, they're still adamantly opposed because then "the next step is banning all semi-automatic guns." Conversely, I don't see many people calling for outright bans or confiscations. This is true. however, people will point rightfully so to previous examples in history where "giving an inch" did lead to "taking a mile." i used the example of the seat belt laws. While I agree there should be greater restrictions, I can understand this attitude from people.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 03:19 PM) The people who wrote the second amendment had no idea guns would be what they are today. Those things took forever to load, didnt fire at nearly the velocity and bullets werent mass produced. Its a joke standing behind that thing all the time. Start with regulating the production of ammo, then ban manufacturing of things like assault rifle and semi-autos that can be converted and then work on making guns smarter. It shouldnt be that difficult. I agree with the assault rifle part but not the semi-automatic. They should ban any external device that can modify them but not the Firearm itself. I like the idea of the smart gun someone stated. Some type of finger print device that would allow for use a certain period of time after a print is entered.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 02:43 PM) The fact that they won't even have the discussion on it is ridiculous, or see the need for a discussion. Other countries have implemented gun laws and saw benefits from them, I'm not saying that they would all work here but we should at least discuss, investigate, and try to make an impact, because we've all seen what doing nothing does. I agree with this. As I've said before the primary problem with any issue today is the hardliners on either side and no one willing to compromise.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 12:54 PM) What angers me about republican officials (and no it's not all) is that so many immediately came out and said that no legislation was or should be in review after these attacks. Both Ryan and McConnell said this, and it frustrates me to no end that the attacks are getting larger, but they still refuse to see if there is something they can do at a legislative level to help fix the issue. And most of those responses I don't feel are genuine, I mean how can any elected official, especially at a federal level, think that they don't have any say in changing a s***ty status quo. I really feel that these politicians are hand strung by their republican voters to keep the status quo on gun law, just from the fear that any change would impact freedoms. So off we go into the same cycle. I agree. However, as someone said, and I'm not sure which politician is was, any reasonable restrictions (short of a ban) would not have prevented this guy from obtaining legal weapons, unless you penalize him for his father's crimes. I think restrictions are reasonable, but I I'm sure if any ones used anywhere would have prevented this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 12:39 PM) Not since McDonnell v Chicago in 2010 came down. Chicago tried putting heavy restrictions on them, but those were struck down too. And just a couple of years ago Illinois's lack of a concealed carry was ruled unconstitutional. After Heller, it's really, really hard to regulate guns in a manner that would put a substantial dent in gun violence imo. Thanks. I don't live in Chicago so I'm not really familiar with the issues. I knew the part about concealed carry as it applied to the State.