Balta1701

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 06:28 PM) Thanks for making my point, B. Thanks for missing mine.

Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Medal of Honor winner and 2nd longest serving senator, has died at the age of 88.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 05:09 PM) My point was addressed in your second sentence. The problem is they ARE undermined by neighboring areas. That doesn't undermine the concept of differing levels of gun safety in different areas...that just means you need to have some level of cooperation to make it work...or you need a registration system to just bypass the local dealer's jurisdiction.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 05:04 PM) I never said having such lax gun control was a good thing. As a matter of fact, not long ago I said it needs to be federally mandated, no state laws, no local laws, etc...without that, there will never be real gun control here. I'm absolutely for effective restrictions on gun use/ownership, etc...I'm not arguing against it. I'm arguing against silly "bans" or restrictions that are local law only...they mean nothing. I actually kind of like the local laws...but they'd actually need to be backed up by state and Federal laws and enforcement of laws against transport (preferably along with registration). Chicago ought to be able to have more stringent gun laws than some ranch in West Texas, for example. I can totally find logic in that. The issue winds up being the one you've pointed out...that a ban in Chicago only works as long as the cities next door aren't deliberately undermining it, and if the ban itself has teeth. If you had registrations for handguns, a handgun ban in Chicago, and confiscation+fines+prison for the owner if the handgun gets picked up in the city of Chicago...you could have a system that would work well. And I see no reason why the middle of Wyoming needs the same restriction.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:56 PM) Wow, I don't wanna jump to conclusions because i still think it's pretty out there but... Peter Lanza (Adams dad) is the Tax Director and Vice President at GE and Robert Holmes (James Holmes dad) is a Crime Scientist for Fico. Both were set to testify in the LIBOR scandal. This is what my friend from high school brought up and after some research it seems to hold some truth...Like I said I think it's pretty out there, I'm interested in hearing what some of you have to say about this. Sigh.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:43 PM) Yeah that's aburd. I have played video games all my life - anything from goofy, cartoony, and cheesy to realistic, violent, bloody, gory, and immoral - and I haven't been affected as a sane and functioning citizen of the United States because I can separate reality from fantasy. The biggest message we could send as a loving and caring society is to raise your children properly. Love and care for your children, raise them properly, spend time with them, nurish and nurture them, but also let them grow up, let them be independent, let them scrape their knees and fall in the grass. Without a good foundation, any person tends to lose focus and touch with reality and they can find themselves in a situation like this, or using drugs, or whatever you can imagine. Again, you and I are anecdotes. I played an a**load of Goldeneye myself and can't stand guns...but that's an anecdote. Let's just say that, in the hypothetical, you found that banning a certain type of video game and movie decreased these type of attacks by 90%. You and I would still be anecdotes, but the results could be incredibly striking for a certain type of individual with a real chance of carrying out something like this. Now, that data doesn't exist, so I'm just hoping to illustrate the flaw in the anecdotal argument. If there was data saying it would work, I would listen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) I didn't mean to say ALL guns in my prior post, but there's a new push now for gun bans in the wake of Newton. Look at this thread. People are talking about bans on guns left and right. Here's two senators wanting to reinstate the assault weapons ban even though the weapons used would have been legal to have under that law: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...eapons-ban.html The excuse that "The assault weapons ban was full of holes" is not a good reason to not have an assault weapons ban...it's a great reason to actually implement a well-designed assault weapons ban. The NRA pokes that law through with so many loopholes that it isn't as effective as it could be. It's allowed to lapse. Weapons that should have been banned under an effective assault weapons ban get used in mass shootings. People say "but the AWB woudln't have banned those guns". Great, give me one that would. The gun he used is a killing machine, and nothing else. It is built to fend off a battalion.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:18 PM) No, like everything else in life, when something goes wrong, we don't blame the product, we blame the person making the mistake. If you own a gun and someone accidentally gets shot, it's because you f***ed up and made a mistake, just like running a red light and hitting something with your car. It's not the cars fault, it's your fault for operating the car the wrong way. If your seven year old gets ahold of the gun, you made a mistake. If you have a teenager with a problem, and he gets your gun, you made a mistake. That doesn't make guns anymore dangerous because some asshole somewhere shoots up a school or some negligent gun owner allowed his kids to get his guns. But we do! We take all sorts of efforts to blame the cars when people die in accidents. We investigate to see if anything was faulty with the car. We require all sorts of training, we require all sorts of licensing, we require huge amounts of safety equipment in order to use the thing. We acknowledge repeatedly that an automobile can be deadly if used improperly, to the point that some would say we require too many safety features (thus raising the price). We blame the car all the time, and change the laws and regulations to make them safer.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:16 PM) And just how often does that happen? The number of kids 11 and under who die in gun accidents per year is approximately equal to the number of justifiable homicides per year. One of those stories gets told as justification for having an unlocked gun around. The other does not.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:14 PM) I think this right here is an important statistic. Here's that FBI data table, since someone noticed when I cited that one this time.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:08 PM) I bet average a law abiding gun owning citizen shoots someone or themselves by accident more often than they shoot someone invading their home. I would also bet far more people have been killed by people shooting guns that were purchased to "protect" homes and family, who were absolutely no threat to someone's home or family. Accidental firearm deaths are about ~600 a year. The FBI keeps records of successful uses of guns to defend a home, and that is about 200 a year. The FBI does not keep records of what Steve said...unsuccessful uses of guns to defend a home. Gun accidents kill a similar number of kids under 11 per year as home intruders. And again...that's not counting suicides, which are by quite a bit the most common use of guns in the united states (nearly 20k per year)

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:50 PM) People consider accidents with guns all the time. That's why you practice gun safety. You act as though people with guns are irresponsible or something, like anyone with a gun eventually shoots someone by accident. And yet you're the same one who explained earlier today why you wouldn't keep your guns locked. No, not everyone shoots someone by accident, not everyone's kid commits suicide. But not every gun owner has a group of black men break down their door and stand by while that gun owner gets off enough shots to become the hero...but we get that described in vivid detail here. We don't get it described in vivid detail how someone's 7 year old found their unlocked gun and blew their friend's face off. We don't get it described in vivid detail how someone's teenager has a runin with a bully and then winds up deciding that's not going to happen again, hurting themselves or the other kid. We get the hero fantasy described. Everyone feels good about that emotion. It's power, and we like power. But when something goes wrong...why that's just an accident. It can't be blamed on the product and we shouldn't do anything to make it safer.

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) The Bears FO also needs to take a big share of the blame too, it's not all on Cutler. That's why the Bears' GM was fired last year.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) That is why you alternate buckshot and slugs in a home defense shotgun -- the slugs can easily travel more than the distance of your house. And with 2 shots at that distance, you're going to kill whatever you were shooting at with a 12 gauge, even a 16. The biggest advantage of a shutgun in the home is you dont have to have very good aim...being woken up in the middle of the night, in the dark, during a home break in, getting your gun and loading it can be bad enough...now having to aim when your wits are dulled gives them about the same odds as it gives you. If you need to shoot at that kind of distance, you either live in a mansion, or you're doing something else entirely. And I note again the complete lack of consideration of any other way that gun could be used. Never a consideration of an accident, or a suicide, or shooting the wrong person. The only thing that matters is the vigilante fantasy.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) If we are talking about odds, what are the odds for a mass shooting attack? How are you defining a mass shooting? More than 1 person shot? That happens all the time. I've heard of ~5 of those since Sandy Hook, and that's probably a fraction of the actual number. I believe there was a "Multiple shooting" at the Exaclibur casino in Vegas Friday night. I heard about a couple police getting shot in Kansas (I think) on the way to work this morning. A couple of people getting shot in an incident is normal enough that it's not anything beyond local news unless it happens in certain places. More than 10 people shot? Much rarer.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) I was thinking about supply and demand and the comments that criminals will get guns anyways. If my economics logic isn't faulty, being able to rent a gun on the street for less than $10 tells me that there is a large supply to meet the demand. If the supply was reduced, guns would cost more to rent, and disrupt the nickle and dime armed robberies. The U.S. has ~5% of the world's population and about 1/3 to 1/2 of the world's guns.

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:04 PM) http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/17...inment-culture/ I'd be more than happy to consider this as well...but the data I've seen on this is inconclusive at best. Here's a 2010 study: Now, the caveat on this of course is that this is a single incident...you're not testing the sociological impact of people playing them for years...but at least in that study, the video games werent' an immediate trigger. At best we currently can say we have an anecdotal connection where some shooters also play video games or go to violent movies..but given how widespread "Violent movies and video games" are in our society it's a hard one to look at. The Batman shooter, for example...focused on a fairly violent set of movies, but is the answer to that to ban that kind of violence from movies? Maybe it is, but you have to show me that it would have a decent chance of being effective.

I don't quite know where to put this but I think it's useful to note somewhere, and it's not on the subject of the gun debate. Since 2008, at the state level, ~ $4.35 billion total has been cut from mental health services nationwide. The article I'm citing says this is the largest comparative cuts to mental health services in this country since the 1970's, when the "mental institutions" of the time were reformed. There are now thousands fewer inpatient beds available, at the same time as there has been an increase in need thanks to the depression. The "Sequester" would, at the federal level...slash another $275 million per year out of mental health budgets. over the next decade, that would be another $3 billion+ worth of cuts. And that isn't counting the additional medicare cuts included.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) Chicago schools lag behind the improvements seen in other big cities. BUt they still have been improving (as has the country as a whole). And there are some very good public schools in Chicago. Chicago public schools also have the highest %age of kids in povery that I could find out of any major city (more than DC, LA, NY, etc.)

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:50 PM) The Packers defense isn't mediocre. Tied at 14th in yards given up with Dallas, slightly better (9) in scoring defense. They'd be in the bottom half of the league if they didn't get to play the Bears.

QUOTE (Sox1 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) It would be amazing if the Bears could beat GB in the Wildcard round I know they've done nothing to convince anyone that they could...but this Bears team ought to be able to stand up to the Packers. When healthy, their defense does as well as anyone of containing Rodgers...the Bears offense just sees the packers on the other side and thinks they're the 85 Bears D. This Packers D is not nearly as good as the Bears make them look. They're in the middle of the league for yards given up and points given up. But they play the Bears...and the Bears can't move the ball forward 1 yard when given the ball at the opponent's 16.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) <!--quoteo(post=2738797:date=Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:40 PM:name=Balta1701)-->QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:40 PM) <!--quotec--> 'Are You The 1701' Trek Viral Site Discovered in 'Into Darkness' Trailer Ty. Clearly I am .

QUOTE (Sox1 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:33 PM) The Bears would have to face the 49ers or Packers in the 1st rd. I can't see them beating either team If the Bears came in as a full team, 3 WR's, healthy D-line, Tillman, Urlacher all there, Cutler not concussed, Bush there for goal lines...the Bears could be capable of stepping up and beating them. I don't know if they believe in themselves enough to do that...but if they were healthy, it wouldn't be talent keeping them from doing so, IMO.

QUOTE (Sox1 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:26 PM) It won't matter, the Bears can't beat any of the playoff teams. Does anyone really think that the Bears can beat the Falcons, 49ers, Packers, Giants and Redskins? Healthy and coming off of 2 wins to rebuild their confidence? Yes they could. Could they get healthy in 2 weeks and not lose anyone else?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) I didnt even want to get into this, but it goes with the entire theme of my argument. No one even knows if you are safer with a gun, let alone that it makes such a difference that you need to have instant access. Actually it's pretty well established from the handful of studies that are out there. But you know why there are only a handful of studies? In 1996, Congress went after anyone who was attempting to study such sociological problems and said that it would rather not know. The Centers for Disease control had funding stripped away for such studies...and then had Congress actively prohibit the CDC and other agencies from even studying the question. We're literally not even allowed to do the science properly unless it's funded by an outside group without government support. They are so scared that the studies will show guns don't make you more safe that they won't allow independent studies to be done. The ones that are out there could not be more clear, but they are sparse compared to everything else I'd look at, because we're not allowed to look. The fantasy that a person is going to be the vigilante who steps up and protects his family is just that...a fantasy. It happens a handful of times per year, bout 200. The nightmare that kids get into guns happens all the time...but no one fantasizes about that, because it doesn't make a person feel good.