Balta1701

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 12:47 PM) A lot more than 26 people have been killed by the AR platform. That doesn't change the intended function of the weapon or how quickly it would lose its killing effectiveness if someone was there to stop this loon. Ah, the vigilante fantasy again.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 12:27 PM) Things Aren't Free Forever Then they shouldn't be scared about losing lots and lots of users. Having something free is a great way to attract lots of interest and use. People will use things when it's free that they won't pay a small amount for. If that is unacceptable to a company's long term business model, then it needs a different long term business model.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 11:30 AM) it would be nice to see some of these criminals go to jail Hell, if laundering billions of dollars in drug money puts no one in jail, why would this?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 10:45 AM) If guns used in crimes are constantly tracked back to a few gun shops (this happens quite often), the sale of those guns needs to be investigated all the way back to the purchaser that will inevitably claim they were stolen from him/her. This person needs to be audited...because more often than not, you're going to find they spent a s***load of money that cannot be account for. People like this need to be held accountable, because they're arming these gangs and being paid to do so. If the investigation shows the guns were actually stolen...so be it...but more often than not, this person was paid to purchase guns and told to say they were "stolen"...follow the f***ing money trail. Just to point out again... The Reason why this does not happen is that the FBI is explicitly prohibited from checking in to such matters by Congress. I repeat...the gun fetishists in Congress have specifically told the FBI that they cannot evaluate or share data on gun purchases that would allow law enforcement to figure out if they have a large number of guns used in crimes coming from specific dealers.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) So answer the question then. How many games would you be willing to sacrifice to see if that theory holds up? Most of spring training.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:12 AM) I'm not too concerned about Nate staying around, I was just saying he was enjoyable to watch last night. He's obviously still really an out of control player who on most nights can cause as much damage as he can assistance. He, and the team, were just quite enjoyable last night, with Joakim's jazz hands, Taj's sky hook, Butler's up-tempo play, and Nate draining everything (and even almost dunking in insane fashion). He can go, though. But I think the team likes him and he's got the right attitude that there'd be no reason to not keep him on the roster. The problem is...out of the 2, you'd clearly keep Nate and dump Hinrich right now. Robinson has out of control games, but at least can help you win some.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 09:07 AM) A guy who can't create his own shot and is a stationary pull-up jumper? He'd be nice excess, but he's not taking the Bulls anywhere they aren't going already, imo. Hasn't it been pointed out already that the Bulls are pretty much the worst 3 point shooting team in the league right now?

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 06:27 PM) ...and Instagram just backed out of this. So maybe there was more too it than you and others were willing to admit. Or, they responded to the freakout after realizing it was bad press.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 01:23 AM) Once you start down this road, of the government protecting us from literally everything, you get a stupid population coerced into homogenous behavior. No you don't. Not everything is a slippery slope, not everything must be. Allowing the first person to own a gun doesn't have to be a slippery slope to armed 18 year olds in college. That's a choice we make. Using the government as a tool to mitigate some risks doesn't mean you hand over everything to the government. Every society in the world gets to decide where to strike that balance.

QUOTE (maggsmaggs @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 08:27 AM) You may not enjoy it for too much longer. If this is true, I just don't know what to say. http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/baske...story?track=rss Difficult to imagine that they'd look at this team and think they'd be better off without Robinson.

QUOTE (Felix @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 08:00 PM) You typed words into a reply box and clicked the "Add reply" button, so apparently yes. And I can't believe you actually wrote it and prompted it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 07:23 PM) I'm sure he supports universal mental care. Stated have cut more than $4 billion from mental wealth since the recession. Large additional cuts are scheduled with the sequester. Its te end result of demanding spending cuts....this is a constituency that is unlikely to defend itself and is happily put on the chopping block.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 07:43 PM) Lakers/Charlotte may be closer than expected. Bulls/Celtics could be close, but Chicago has been iffy lately. How have the Celtics been doing lately?

QUOTE (Felix @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 07:33 PM) The "tough internet mod" card sure is an impressive one to play. Really must make the girls swoon. Seriously? Do i really need to comment on this?

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 06:35 PM) Less than 1% of shootings in the US use fully automatic weapons. They're extremely expensive and even more difficult to properly fire. Even in the military most soldiers never go full auto, 3 round burst at the most. Those who do are using weapons that are mounted or can be quickly deployed to suppress an enemy, aka keep them pinned and hiding behind cover. They're too inaccurate and temperamental to be used or even relied on any other way. EDIT- If you're just referring to semi-automatic rifles, well, those are really no more deadly than your average handgun in one of these situations. I'm not talking about a fully automatic weapon. You said it yourself...appropriate use of these weaopns isn't even fully automatic for soldiers. The weapons themselves though, remain killing machines. A person using a semi-automatic Bushmaster rifle walking down the hallway is effectively just as well armed as a soldier in the field. A single shot limit really doesn't change anything. These things are killing machines that put handguns to shame in effectiveness. Particularly for this type of incident.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 06:21 PM) And in one of those situations you can control the entire situation, in the other you can't. Yes you can. You can almost perfectly prevent gun accidents involving children under 11. If children under 11 do not have access to guns...you have controlled the problem.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 06:16 PM) Fair, but let's be realistic. You ban automatic weapons and even hand guns. You still get rifles and shotguns. In this recent tragedy the shooter now knows that he only has X amount of time to get off shots, so he shoot the adults who pose the biggest threat to him. The kids certainly can't defend themselves. You've done nothing but MAYBE lessen the total number of victims, but in general terms of talking about these tragedies, is there a difference between 20 and 30 victims? I just think there's a deeper societal issue here that gets overlooked by pointing at guns. It's not our gun-toting nature that's causing these events, it's something that makes these people snap and w'ere not doing enough to prevent that from happening. This is worth replying to specifically regarding banning assault rifles. It's hard to state how much more of "Killing machines" these things are than anything else out there. They are remarkably lethal. Between the large magazine, the rapid fire capability, the size (which limits the kick so that you can get off repeated aimed shots) and the type of ammunition used, they are incredible killing machines. When the death toll for this was given as like 26, with only a couple wounded, guessing that his main weapon was the assault rifle was easy. If you go to do this with a pistol, you kill some, but you wound a lot unless you put multiple rounds into each person. Pistol ammunition can kill at close range or with a well positioned shot, You get shot in the arm with a pistol, you're not likely to die. You take that same shot from one of these things, you go down. When the ammunition from an assault rifle hits the body, it doesn't just penetrate, it tends to tumble and fragment/spall, causing vast amounts more tissue damage and delivering vastly more energy to the body its impacting. The same shot to the arm that might wound a person from a pistol will tear that person's arm nearly off from an assault style rifle. These weapons and rounds are built so that if an approaching soldier is hit by a single round...they go down and do not get back up. Each case is different, but the more you make a person reload, and the less lethal you make the gun, the more people will survive. It's really hard to express how truly efficient of a killing machine one of these rifles is. That's all they're built to do, tear flesh apart.

Whoever names their team the "Red Sox" needs punished...

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 06:15 PM) I'm sure balts will be happy to provide you with the data on the likelihood of you shooting your child to death. Like I've said...successful self-defenses happen ~200 times per year. ~200 kids age 11 and under die in gun related accidents per year. They're subequal. For every successful self-defense with a gun recorded by the FBI, a kid 11 or under dies in a gun accident.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 06:10 PM) Oh that's bulls***. In your own home you have the advantage. I'm not talking about a situation where you're in a crowded plaza and someone with a gun starts shooting people and you want to play the hero. I'm talking about you're in your home and feel your life is being threatened. Two completely different scenarios. In your mind it doesn't matter, you should just lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot. I say f*** that, I should have the right to protect myself. I think it's bulls*** that you would judge someone on their actions in what they believe to be a truly life or death situation. The things I think are bulls**t include: 1. Basing national policy decisions on events that happen ~200 times per year, when gun deaths total ~30,000 or so per year. 2. The fact that Congress is so scared of finding out that you're better off not having a gun in the house during a home invasion that they won't allow research into the question. 3. The fact that how you want to feel about yourself is used to make policy rather than actual data. 4. The fact that you feel you get to look down on someone who would just give up their wallet or their jewelry box rather than get shot at if doing so makes it much more likely that you will live, because you're sure that you'd want to go down fighting and anyone who just wants to "Lie on the ground and pray you don't get shot" is not deserving of respect.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 06:04 PM) Worth a shot. I agree. Hits in the minors, hasn't hit great in the bigs but is extra slightly-below-replacement-player depth. Worst case scenario you give a bat to Charlotte.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:57 PM) So why are you saying it's a fact that you're increasing the risk of death when you have nothing to back that up? I said I can't say that specifically about the case you're citing. You can't either...but that's not the point. The point is...you don't care. You explicitly said you wouldn't care if it made the situation worse. You'd rather go down fighting. I can site specific data for the case of a crime on the street. In that case there's at least one solid, recent study out there from Pennsylvania that says if you're carrying a gun and someone tries to rob you, you're more likely to be hurt/killed than if you're not carrying the gun by several times. That sort of standard could easily apply to home invasion cases... But you specifically said you don't care. Nothing will convince you.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:56 PM) And that's fine and i've said i'm in favor of some more restrictions and generally making it more difficult to acquire guns. But at some point that restriction starts impeding on my use of guns and my want to have some protection, whether you believe that want of protection is reasonable or not. For example, forcing me to keep my guns locked in a safe with my ammo locked in another safe is a bulls*** restriction to combat the .000000000000001% chance someone will steal that gun and use it. Actually...this one I can say safely you're clearly underestimating those chances...if you're talking about having anyone living in your house. By far the most common use of guns to kill a person is suicide. When you have a gun in your house, the chances of it being used by someone for suicide is huge, if you have a family around. It happens 100x more per year than a successful defense against a home invasion. When the Israeli army stopped allowing their soldiers to take their weapons home with them, their suicide rates dropped by 60%. Having a gun around makes what would otherwise be a fleeting decision into a potentially life threatening situation.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:52 PM) And what are the statistics exactly? I haven't seen any numbers. Again, the CDC is explicitly prohibited by Congress from doing research into that question, and consequently no one else in the government will fund that research.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 18, 2012 -> 05:47 PM) Can we assume that the guns that the bangers in Alpha's story were all illegal? None were acquired legally? Perhaps with fewer guns in circulation, fewer guns would have been available, and all the sudden 6 guns turns to 1 or something. You can't just assume that if you remove Alpha's gun you aren't removing other guns. By the way...Congress has enacted legislation preventing the FBI or ATF from actually looking into this question and trying to track down systematically what fraction of guns were purchased legally or whether there are specific dealers who are sourcing large numbers of guns used in crimes.