ptatc

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 01:56 PM) I'm sure there are plenty of people who were trained how to use guns at a very young age that still use them or used them very irresponsibly. No doubt but would it be less than current people who become fascinated with them and do irresponsible thing out of ignorance?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:02 PM) The real problem is that a small extreme views seem to drown out what the majority of America would agree on. Whenever ideas are brought up about gun regulation it always ends in "This is the first step to taking our guns away." Absolutely.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 12:47 PM) "It's the first step towards the government confiscating all firearms" is the number one gun advocate argument against it. It falls under "if you give them an inch they'll take a mile" If you give the government a concession on automatic rifles will they take more late. I see why people get crazy about it.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 12:41 PM) Good for you. Why is it there is a bigger problem with people getting shot individually and massively more in the US than any other country, where there are more guns than anywhere else, when learning how to use a gun only teaches kids and adults alike responsibility? How are these other countries able to survive with a fraction of the guns, a minuscule defense budget, not enough nuclear bombs the blow the world up 10 times over.... One of my roommates in college had a rifle. He was a hunter and kept it in the closet. I was scared to death of that thing. If you are trained with them there is no reason to be scared to death of them. The obvious answer would be that everything would be better if there were no guns. However, that is not feasible in this country. I can honestly say that over 40 years of hunting since I was 10 no one I know has ever had an accident or been shot. Maybe if everybody was trained as a child we wouldn't have the issues of people becoming fascinated with them. It's way of live where I grew up and nobody had issues. I really don't know the answer other than a good place to start is to somehow restrict high capacity magazines in some capacity. I know I would want to give up my shotguns and rifles for my hobbies, sports and protection against coyotes and such on the farm.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 12:51 PM) which is why that loophole needs to be closed yesterday. No doubt.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 12:42 PM) ptac (and I guess anyone else) - thoughts on requiring firearms to be titled like a vehicle? Seems to me that would make it easier to create a regulated secondary market for firearm sales. It would require a nationalized database, and there would be issues accounting for the many millions of firearms already in circulation, but I've never heard a particularly compelling argument against. Personally, I'm all for things like this. While I'm an avid hunter and skeet shooter, the types of firearms and the control of them needs to be improved.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) What is the benefit of a 10 year old shooting rifles and shotguns and pistols? I was hunting when I was 10 with both rifles and shotguns.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:48 AM) Are there really that many gun thefts? Pretty sure almost every gun out there was legally purchased at one time. The issue isn't thefts as much as it is obtaining them through gun shows and similar circumstances where they aren't registered properly.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:47 AM) The vast majority of gun deaths come from legally owned and obtained guns. YOU are the one skewing the information for your benefit. I'm not skewing anything. i'm not drawing any conclusions. I'm only saying you need to take the data and results for it's face value and realize that you can't call these facts because they aren't. They are conclusions drawn from data which isn't necessarily representative of the entire population.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 06:42 AM) I mean, most educated people in general are liberals. That doesn't change the facts and the data. Y'alls war on facts is one of the most maddening things about you. Facts don't change based on your political ideology, and to suggest that scientists and researchers intentionally skew and change the facts in their research because of their politics is pretty 1) disrespectful to their integrity and 2) would get them fired pretty damn quick. If there's absolutely nothing you'll listen to if it comes from a perceived "liberal" source, why do you even engage in discussion? Yes, they do. And do it quite often as a matter of fact. Especially academics working toward their doctoral degrees or working on a big grant. It's quite easy to skew a project one way or another to show what you want. It doesn't always work that way but it does happen. It's not changing facts because with the inclusion or exclusion criteria you already mostly determined where the facts will lead. Edit: I need to amend this a little. I'm not saying it's always done intentionally. As with the data you presented, it's sometimes done for ease of access. As you stated, it would be hard to get data for illegal guns. However, I would hope that the original article/publication listed this as a limitation in the study. There is also the process of getting published where well known people will get published more often and have an easier time getting the articles published. They are blinded for reviews but I've done reviews and when its a certain topic presented in a certain way, people in the field really know who wrote it.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 06:39 AM) legal. obviously it's incredibly difficult to collect data on illegal gun ownership this skews the results and conclusions based on that limitation. They really need to amend many of their conclusions. 1. There are between 300-350 million guns in civilian hands in the US. 2. Americans own more than half of the global civilian stock though they are 5% of world population. 3. Legal Gun ownership in US has declined from 49% of households in the early 1970s to 36% in 2016. 4. This means that on average, a gun owning household has 8-10 Legal firearms. A substantial percentage have a lot more. 5. Legal Guns are expensive so your average gun owner who invests in AR15s is not a trailer park dweller. He is a middle to high SES guy. The trailer park dweller could have illegally obtained firearms many do. 6. The HE is intentional. Most legal gun owners are men. In recent years, the NRA had made some marketing appeals to women but with modest success. 7. The vast majority of Legal gun owners are white. Based on GSS data, 90% of legal gun owners are white, same as it was in 1973. The share of whites in the general population is 65%, so this is an extraordinarily white bunch if the guns are obtained legally . 8. People don't own legal guns for safety even though that is the socially desirable thing to say in surveys. Remember the average gun owning household has 8 guns. What's the marginal utility of that 8th gun? How much more safety does it provide to make it a worthwhile investment? 9. In addition, analysis shows that people who are afraid of crime are more supportive of gun control. 10. Legal Guns are an expression of white identity, a very political identity. Through legal firearms, whites express racial fears, prejudices, and ingroup favoritism in a symbolic way. 11. Since the 1970s the NRA has funded and supported the production of hundreds of law review articles peddling very questionable constitutional theories of the 2nd amendment. They all cite each other and ignore serious historical scholarship. These theories found their way into Scalia's Heller decision (original but hardly originalist) 12. The NRA has used these legal narratives to construct a political narrative which is popular with the base. 13. In this view, gun rights are the most important of all civil rights because on them rests the right to vote and the right to free speech. Only by reserving the right to shoot government officials can a man be secure that the government will not be tyrannical. 14. This is an explicit rejection of Weberian understandings of the state. It is also illogical. But it is oh so satisfying emotionally. Who cares about internal logic? 15. When you start out with the premise that legal guns are the "first right" it becomes the uber litmus test. ANY effort to restrict guns is viewed as an attempt by the state to limit people's fundamental rights. It is taken as seriously as voter ID laws. 16. At a time when demographic change, a black president, political correctness, and the alt right all hit the same button of status anxiety, prejudiced whites feel uber threatened so this narrative works. In their heads it is real. 17. Given that this is about identity, the public health campaign of emphasizing the human toll of guns can't work. We need a very different approach." 18. Whites are the group the most often obtain their guns legally and register them. could be added See how this changes the conclusions. I've done enough research and published enough to know that inclusion and exclusion criteria change the outcomes. For example, most of my research is done on healthy athletic subjects. Would a new intervention that helps that group be applicable for use in a 73 year old sedentary person with a history of a stroke? No. I'm not saying everything stated here is false or misleading but you need to be very careful with using any research and generalizing it as facts when they have serious limitations. This is why there are perfectly valid and reliable studies which can show two opposing views in any field.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 09:48 PM) The information all comes from direct research and studies conducted by political scientists and psychologists. But I'm glad you think it's laughable conjecture. The war on intellectualism continues in America. Is the data collected based on the legal guns and owners, illegal guns and owners or both.

QUOTE (oneofthemikes @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 02:25 PM) Courtney Hawkins Oh yeah. Blocked that one from my mind. What year was that? It's been at least 4-5 years. Edit: Got off the lazy train and looked it up. Since 2000. It's been Honel 2001, Gonzalez in 2004 and Hawkins and Barnum (sandwich) in 2012. It doesn't happen often and doesn't turn out well.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 12:51 PM) Nander de Sedas and RHP Ethan Hankins are my two favorite players in the class. I think they'll be in 1-1 discussion come June. For those of you that don't have a BA subscription: 1. Tigers: Brady Singer RHP Florida 2. Giants: Ethan Hankins RHP HS GA 3. Phillies: Brice Turang SS HS CA 4. White Sox: Nander de Sedas SS HS FL 5. Reds: Nolan Gorman 3B HS AZ 6. Mets: Shane McClanahan LHP South Florida 7. Padres: Casey Mize RHP Auburn 8. Braves: Kumar Rocker RHP HS GA 9. Athletics: Nick Madrigal SS/2B Oregon State 10. Pirates: Matthew Liberatore LHP HS AZ 12. Toronto: Greyson Jenista 1B Wichita State 13. Marlins: Jarred Kelenic OF HS WI 23. Yankees: Triston Casas IB HS FL 25 DBacks: Travis Swaggerty OF South Alabama I will be surprised if the Sox pick a HS player. Not that he doesn't deserve it but the sox just don't typically take HS in the first round. The last one I can think of was Gio Gonzalez in around 2004-2005. Either way they just don't do it often.

RIP Chalie T. Wilbury Jr. Slowly rebuilding the Super Group too soon.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 03:45 PM) Some artists just speak to you. It took until my adulthood for it to happen with Petty, but once it did, it was a pretty big connection. There aren't too many more artists I will be this sad about when they go... Paul McCartney is the only one I can think of off of the top of my head. There is just such an amazing body of work with Petty, and such a straightforward style. His music didn't need to be cleaned up for radio, his voice wasn't the thing you think of as radio friendly even though he has a face made for radio, etc. But the guitar work and the lyrics made him stand up on his own. Damn. Wildflowers and Full Moon Fever are just spectacular rock albums made after the era of rock he belonged to, yet they still stood out. The work he did in the two Wilbury's albums both stands out on for his own contributions, yet together defines the concept of Supergroup to a T. RIP. Agreed. Just an outstanding rock group (person) for a long time. Damn the torpedoes was one of the first albums I purchased on my own. "Stop Draggin' My Heart Around" is a a classic. RIP. Last dance with Mary Jane TP

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 11:23 AM) Rodgers. I told you I failed spelling. I was especially poor on the exam for QB names.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 10:53 AM) Fox and Pace could have different agendas. Fox might be to the point where he figures Trubisky is the only guy that can save his job. That said, while Pace might agree with that, if he thinks that playing him now reduces the long-term success rate of Trubisky being good, then I could see him stepping in (since he knows he'll be around longer). Heck, look at Cleveland...Kizer is sinking over there. Does anyone think he is learning from being that bad? There is absolutely the possibility that they have a different agenda. That is the the struggle in the front office and point to that discussion if Fox will be here next year.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 09:54 AM) For the reasons you've been saying would be my guess. I just don't agree that he needs to sit for 3 years watching terrible QB's play before he'll be any good I would agree. Even though Rogers said it was valuable, 3 years is extreme.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 09:49 AM) Lol you are hilarious this morning. McCown I failed spelling in school.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 09:18 AM) Ironically, they probably coulda signed Kaepernick and a Terrell Pryor or Pierre Garcon and wound up with a far better setup for less money. No doubt. Even a Josh Mckown making half the money would have been a better choice.

QUOTE (SoxAce @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 08:01 AM) Ok this is bothering me a bit. Ptatc, his last name is Trubisky. No e in it at all. It is? My mistake. I thought I read it with the e.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 07:52 AM) Yeah, I would agree making him the back up and saying he isn't ready totally contradict each other. But, if he did play up until now, he wouldn't have been gameplanned for, and it probably would have helped. The one thing they liked about Glennon was a lack of turnovers. That blew up in their faces. No doubt they picked a poor lame duck QB. The top 2 WRs going down early didn't help him much though.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 07:31 AM) This is really easy guys. If they didn't think he was ready to play then he wouldn't be the #2 QB on game days. My only question would be, Why isn't he starting then? Fox knows his job is on the line.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Oct 2, 2017 -> 12:55 AM) ok...I'll just say...I disagree with your opinion (that you keep repeating like a broken record). So your opinion is he's not ready (regardless of the fact you stated you'd like to see him start)...lol ok. Again...we'll find out next monday. But keep throwing out the word "irrelevant". You don't think guys like Hicks standing up and stating "changes need to be made and to make changes that put the team in a better position to succeed" aren't directed at Glennon and the coaching staff?!?!? hahahaa...geezus. If that's not a damning statement...not sure what to tell ya. I'd venture to say he's not the only one that feels that way...and whether you agree or not...those opinions do matter. And I'd venture to say they see it every day in practice...those comments are pretty telling I'd say. It's called "losing a team" from a coaches standpoint. Sorry...if you can't see that. And fyi...my answer as to why he should be playing is based on what I've seen from Trubisky to date and his abilities (as many others have)...in my opinion he's ready...and yes...he'll make mistakes. But won't look like an incompetent boob out there like Glennon has. So quit twisting my words to fit your narrative. Seems Watson is ready down in Houston with his 5 td passes today (and honestly he looked completely unprepared in preseason). Kizer...meh...bad example. Russell Wilson was ready. Jameis Winston was ready. Trubisky has shown he's very capable. If you think it's better to handle him with kid gloves...cool...your opinion. Again...we'll find out soon enough. No offense..but I like my option/opinion much better as well...and so does most of Chicago sans a few. If they throw him out there and he looks completely over his head...I'll admit I'm wrong. But I wont' judge on one game. But it's time to move forward with him... You shouldn't judge by one game. I'm going to sound like a broken record here again. the long term development of Trubiskey is the key. Not next game not this year. It doesn't matter what other rookie QBs have done this year. They are all different and Trubiskey has a disadvantage over all of them with his lack of experience. Every example you used were QBs from big programs with multiple years of starting experience. I never said I wanted him to start at any time other than when he was ready. My comment was that this week makes the most sense if the coaching staff thought he was ready. I'm not twisting your words. Glennon sucks everyone knows it. that doesn't mean you should rush Trubiskey. Using a baseball example, Eloy jimenez looks to be the most talented OF the Sox have. Why isn't he in the MLB? I'm sure Hicks probably was referring to this situation. He is a player and wants to win now. The front office can't afford to look that short term. Their job is to look into the future as well. You very well could be right and he is ready although I'm not sure why they wouldn't play him if he was ready. I'm just pointing out why he might not be and stating I would not not take the chance of ruining him if he wasn't. There are plenty of examples where it wasn't successful to throw players into starting, Tim couch, JaMarcus Russell, Alex smith (although he became decent with his next team, doesn't help the Bears), Jason campbell, Vince, young, Jeff George, and the one many people look at is Jim Plunket. There are examples on both sides, all players are different. I would just be cautious with him try do what is best for his development and not focus on what the Bears need today.