ptatc

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 05:04 PM) There is one single gun shop in Riverdale that sold guns used in 1500 crimes in Chicago in a 5 year period. I've been there. It's just like you would suspect. I walked out of there and told my friend "you know we are on the FBI watch list now."

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 04:16 PM) illinilaw08 - I think the other response to your question is "what will this new law really change? Is it even necessary?" If your aim is to decrease crime, what does a gang banger care if he's carrying an unregistered gun? Or a guy like this mass-murderer. He went through all the steps to legally acquire the guns he used, so he would do the same thing if registration was required. That wouldn't have stopped anything. Some gun laws/changes to existing law I agree with - limiting high capacity magazines, limiting straw purchases, increasing civil/criminal penalties on gun shops, opening up the data for research, etc. But a lot of them are just pointless. Look at the responses in this thread. At the end of the day what anti-gun people want is a total ban and they won't be happy until they get it. And I think that justifies the "fear" on the part of responsible, legal gun owners. As soon as they give an inch, another shooting happens and the anti-gun lobby will demand more until at some point access to guns is extremely limited. I'm not sure i'm on board with a total ban on a type of gun either. I mean I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but while I agree that an auto/semi-auto assault rifle has no utility outside of military use, it's probably awesome as hell to shoot. No one needs a car that can drive 200 mph. It's illegal to drive it that fast in 99.9% of situations. But people still want them because it's fun. And yeah yeah guns are intended to kill while cars are not, but those cars and the morons that drive them are still a danger to the public and still hurt themselves and others using those cars. So why not ban them too? Why not ban alcohol? Why are we allowing bars to serve people that drive knowing that tens of thousands of people will die this year due to drunk driving? Why not change laws to make bars responsible if they serve someone that drove? At some point society is "ok" with unnecessary death. That's why I find the whole twitter/Kimmel response so infuriating. "If you don't agree with a total ban you have blood on your hands!" f*** off. So do you for drinking beer and allowing bars to exist. Get off your soap box. They are especially on full auto.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 04:47 PM) Don't those necessarily play together though? Registering firearms isn't taking them away. And it's the only way to really close (or manage) the secondary market for firearms, isn't it? I have no problem with it. It would help at least to some degree and wouldn't make obtaining them any more of a hassle legally.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:31 PM) See, this is the part that I don't get. With as strong as the gun lobby is in this country, we're infinitely closer to Medicare For All than we are to the government taking our guns away - and I don't think we're particularly close to actually having Medicare For All enacted. Because firearms are not titled, they are really, really easy to sell to basically anybody on the secondary market right? Maybe I'm missing something here because I'm not a gun owner, and if I am, someone can educate me otherwise... I agree but as i said in other responses, people are afraid that if you allow the government to take something away they will just want to continue it. You are correct about the firearms and the secondary market. This is a loophole that really needs to close.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:29 PM) A lot of stuff is like that but it winds up being better. The situation evolves. Anyone still really pissed off there is no smoking in bars? They would all go out of business... How many here are old enough, and you don't have to be that old, when people smoking in the office was no big deal? Now, not only do people not smoke in bars or in the office, they don't do it in their cars, and go outside even at home. If it's all about safety, and the vast majority of gun owners say they have one for precisely that, why not make owning guns safer for everyone? I think people are just afraid that if you if you give anything to the government, they will slowly continue to take more and more and who knows where it will end.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:20 PM) But seriously, what are assault type rifles really used for? its not home protection or protection from the very rare large animal. I dont get the reluctance of giving those up. I totally agree. As I said I think a logical place to start is somehow limiting high capacity magazines. However, I also understand the idea of "when does it stop." Simple things like when the government made seat belts mandatory. People fought it saying that they will eventually fine people for not wearing them. The government response was always that they just wanted to help make people safer and would not ticket people for choosing not to. A couple decades later it changes.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 02:05 PM) Growing up, I never touched a gun. My parents even kept toy guns away from me. I have no urge to carry one or want one. Growing up, I was raised that all people are equal, no matter gender, skin color, religion, etc. I have no hate in my heart for anyone. Not every case will be the same, I get that. But starting anything on kids when they're young, goes a long way. You are a rare person if your parents and others around you had no animosity or bias against absolutely no one. Responsibility goes a long way as well if it's started young.

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.