Balta1701

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) I'm pretty certain the odds would be better that you would need to defend yourself from a robbery or whatever than the odds for being a victim of an escalated public fight that turned concealed carry into a license to kill. Actually, the odds are that if you're a victim of a robbery, you're more likely to get shot if you yourself are carrying a gun. You're safer just giving them your wallet.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:03 PM) And therein lies the problem. You want to have quick access to a tool that is extremely dangerous. In all other circumstances it is completely reasonable to restrict quick access to something that is dangerous, but to some guns are the exception. To me they are not. Guns are just a nice bed time story to make you feel safe at night. The night time break in hypothetical is also one of the most dangerous. Its dark, you may have been sleeping, you are now going to arm yourself and make a difference? I just dont get it. I do not expect everyone to be like me, to simply accept that our lives are so random that having a gun likely wont matter. So I go to sleep at night without a gun. And if someone breaks in my house, I have some plans. Maybe theyll kill me, maybe Ill get them. Win some, you lose some. The problem with your justification "in my house" is that you are not willing to accept your gun can be taken from your house, where it becomes my problem. The easy access you desire, also means easy access for a child or criminal. But to answer your question, if I wanted to own a gun and somehow was fearful to the point where I wanted close easy access. I would keep the gun locked in a wall safe or nightstand next to my bed. And therein lies the problem with this discussion...it's entirely emotional. Everyone defending guns, except for a few people who are telling us that their neighborhood is as bad as Baghdad, is using an emotional argument. You're right, I'm sure you do feel more secure having it in the house and being able to respond to the unlikely event of an intruder (and yes, an intruder during the night, for virtually everyone in the United States, is an unlikely event). What is getting ignored though? All the other things that can happen. The actual data is being completely ignored in favor of the emotion. The actual numbers say that if you have a gun in the house, you're an order of magnitude more likely to accidentally use it to shoot someone you know, or your family is vastly more likely to use it to hurt themselves, either accidentally or on purpose. The number of successful defenses against home invasions by people with guns is miniscule compared to the number of gun accidents and suicides by people who used a family member's gun. A good comparison is flying/driving. Per mile, you're vastly safer making a trip on a plane than driving...but people get nervous on planes in a way that they don't while driving because they're in control while driving. You have a gun, you get that surge of neurotransmitters...you feel more comfortable, controlled, in power. That is not the case at all, outside of maybe, maybe, maybe the most violent neighborhoods in the country...but that doesn't change how the brain processes it. The brain is making a mistake, but it's a mistake the human brain is designed to make. Humans are really bad at evaluating the actual risk of rare things. We're really bad at evaluating the likelihood of a car accident, but we learn not to be scared of that because we deal with autos in our daily lives and we feel in control. We're really bad at evaluating what changes to the risks to our family having a gun in the house does...but we know we like to be in control, so there is nothing, no bit of data, no forum post, no study, no crime, no tragedy that will change our minds on that.

What would people wear for an interview conducted over Skype (university professor position)? I'll probably do shirt and tie, would people do more/less than that?

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:15 PM) No. No one on this site has guaranteed me that Danks will throw 190 innings next year, but I'm getting jumped on for the opinion that he won't come back as good a pitcher as he was before the surgery. Note that by putting the number at 190 innings, you're putting all the onus on us to assume absolutely nothing bad happens. He can't be hit by a line drive, he can't pull an abdominal muscle. Danks didn't pitch 190 innings in 2011...because he pulled an abdominal muscle and hit the 15 day DL for a stretch. So you're making a very weak prediction while asking us to say "Yes, absolutely" to something we wouldn't be confident about for anyone. There's literally no one in our rotation who I would say "Yes, I guarantee they will throw 190 innings". Not a single one. All that means is, you've given us an incredible standard to meet, and you're judging us based on the fact that we won't meet it. Here's one for you. Will you guarantee me that Danks will throw less than 80 innings? That's an equally fair test.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:16 AM) I think it's easier to say that if you've never been the victim. This state would ban me from talking about my religious beliefs (or lack thereof) if they could.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) I want ready access to my gun in case of an emergency and I think a lot of gun owners add that to their list of reasons for having a gun. I get there's a reasonable restriction for having to lock up your guns if children are present in the home, but to lock them up all the time is too restrictive IMO. What if you live alone? You still have to buy a gun safe in the random chance your place gets robbed and someone steals your gun? And here, of course, is the rub for anyone who wants to tell you that having these things is safe. A substantial fraction of the owners will find a way to justify whatever behavior you consider to be unsafe. And the end result is...people will die...But we're not allowed to do anything about it.

I'll always go with the pitching. And that means Chris Sale. Yes he had a great year last year...reaching his ceiling means staying there, staying healthy, and getting better as he learns hwo to pitch more.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 10:07 AM) It's one thing to be at a "generic" funeral. But the funeral of a child killed in a fashion and situation like this...? I know the crossing the line and inciting violence or something that will put someone directly into harm's way part of the law...and surely it's something they (WBC) are very careful to avoid, but with things being as touchy as they are, look what happened with Terry Jones burning Korans in Florida. That had real life consequences, although not directly in the area or city where he was located. I don't want to live in a society where people are denied the rights to stupid speech. I want to live in a society where those type of people are given their rights to speech...and everyone else is repelled by it if they're dumb enough to use it. I want to live in a society where people are raised better than that. Where people are better people than the WBC.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:59 AM) gotcha ok. i forgotted. In several European countries, hate speech is not protected speech. They wind up having to deal with the shifting realities, based on politics...of what exactly is hate speech.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:54 AM) Somehow, I have a hard time imagining the Founding Fathers wanting to protect a CHURCH that presents such vitriolic beliefs as their cornerstone. Yes. They did. This is exactly what free speech is supposed to be. I have no problem with them being forced back places (hell, go protest a political convention and say hi to the "Free Speech Zones" for me). But free speech means that there will be speech no one likes.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 10:56 PM)

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:58 AM) Bulls already beat the Knicks. Again, 1 game in the regular season ≠ a 7 game postseason series.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 09:21 PM) Anonymous hacks the WBC, posts all their personal info. Please tell me their personal information is not actually at the page you linked.

Did that "I am Adam Lanza's mother" blog post wind up in here? Can't remember if it was just here or a dozen times on my facebook feed. Want the Truth Behind “I Am Adam Lanza’s Mother”? Read her blog.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:47 PM) I watch an awful lot of football and I haven't seen the refs scrutinize a wideout for contact or pushing off like that all year. You maybe see one of those called, but not three. I think part of the problem was that they all looked really bad in realtime. In every case the DB went to the ground and it seemed like Alshon had his hands out. Maybe that's just a matter of him having his body/hands in the wrong position, but it seemed every time like he was begging to get called for it. I still think the only answer is to allow some of the big penalties (Pass interference, personal fouls) to be challenged. Peppers' hit fits that description too.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:46 PM) So has anyone heard about the mom not being a teacher there? Yes. She was definitely not a full time teacher there. It's been a little unclear if she was ever a substitute teacher there, but the answer actually seems to be moving towards "no" over the last day or so, although if she had done so 10 years ago there just might not be any easily found documents.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) Heck, even look at what he's doing with Foles. Foles isn't any good. Reid has made any QB he had better, imo. He had McNabb look decent his last year in Philly before he completely fell apart in Washington. Ditto for the guy on the Cards (whose name is escaping me at the moment) who is terrible. Getting Reid would be a freaking awesome. (Kevin Kolb).

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) Holy s***. Yeah, I've been in that community many times trying to sell vacuums.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:26 PM) Bears beat the cowboys. Ok, they're the only tiebreaker the Bears would have, the Bears would be behind all the other ones.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:24 PM) He is a great offensive mind. Same with Sean Payton, same with Norv Turner, same with Mike Martz. What's one thing they all have in common? Answer: they all need an offensive line to run their systems. The problems with the Bears are not with the head coach. It's with the offensive line first and foremost, then with the old defense. Flat out, you need better players. And maybe a new offensive coordinator. Philadelphia's offensive line is terrible and they're in the top 10 in offense this year.

QUOTE (Chisoxfn @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:19 PM) I'm glad he's taking responsibility. So what do the Bears need to happen to make the playoffs. Clearly they need to win 2 in a row, but what else needs to happen? I think that if all the teams wound up 10-6, the Skins and Cowboys and Giants and Vikings would wind up having tiebreaker advantages over the Bears. Basically, the Bears need to wind up with more wins than them.

QUOTE (Jake @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:11 PM) Jay appears to hold anyone necessary accountable in the huddle, but he takes all the blame in the media. Sometimes you need your QB to step up and make a play, or to have a game where he doesn't make the big mistake(s). Jay Cutler has shown no ability to do those when he's facing a tough challenge. I just don't think he has it to carry the team. You can still win with a QB like that, but you have to build around him and try to turn him into a manager. Basically, stop letting Cutler make the big mistake.

Oh, and in case no one's watching and no one should be... LOL at Buffalo down 31-7 after 24 minutes.

QUOTE (2nd_city_saint787 @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 05:10 PM) Didnt Emery have a 3-4 or 4-3 (whichever has 4 LBs)? Shea is not a DE but I think he has potential as an OLB. Lets make that happen if Lovie is gone. Briggs-Urlacher-Roach-Shea. Yes Emery ran a 3-4 style with the Patriots and with the Chiefs.