Balta1701

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 09:32 AM) Go ahead and trade for him...by the time you get him the hot streak will be over and he'll pop out 100 times in a row to right and then scream "f***" as he jogs to first base. Eh, you're a little harsh with the popup part, dude can hit when he's healthy. If you wanted to instead go with something along the lines of making the Tigers D even worse, then you'd have me.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 14, 2012 -> 09:01 AM) It's about promotion time with the draft refilling the minors. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Castro move up to AAA, and if Hernandez isn't ready to come off of the DL in AA, maybe a Jon Bachanov or Matthew Heidenreich move up from WS. You've got a guy like Blair Walters who has been begging for a promotion to WS from Kanny all year. What's Charlotte's rotation like right now? With Danks there they have to have an extra person currently right? If Danks gets swapped with Stewart soon, same difference, since Quintana was called up from AA, Charlotte has gained 1 starter and lost 1 starter since the opening of the year.

woop. That ball went kinda far.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 05:52 PM) Which again means that it could have been entirely justified, so the 7-9% increase isn't "2 innocent people a day are dead now." Just 2 people a day that have been labeled in the SYG area of homicides. I also had an issue with them using pre-2005 data. Isn't that sort of bogus since SYG laws have pretty specific language in the statutes and that's the language the state prosecutors use to bring the type of charge they're going to bring? No, it means we're struggling with percentages. It means that 0.2 of the 2 dead people per day are counted as justifiable homicides under these laws. If they were only using pre-05 data, you'd have a point. However, what you do is compare the same states pre-and-post "SYG" law, and then you also compare those states to states that don't have SYG laws, and you also compare states based on when they enacted the SYG law. That's how you can evaluate whether a trend is statistically significant.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 06:58 PM) Again, it is just so simple. Criminals have guns. You want to reduce guns so you take them away from the honest people. Serves the honest folks up like Fourth of July tourists on Amity Island. But it does keep the criminals safe. Hide in your closet while they take all your stuff. The cops will show up, eventually. It is just so simple. When a person is carrying a gun, they put themselves and everyone around them in danger. Not just the criminal. If you are carrying a gun, you have put me in danger. And no matter how much you or anyone else wants to pat yourself on the back and tell yourself you're the safe one, if you decide to carry, and you're not going to run into a bear, you have made a reckless choice and justified it using your gut.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 05:45 PM) I'm pretty sure i've made the point before that the use of SYG defenses has also risen, which makes sense because it's now available. That inherently would increase the rate of homicides in this area of the law. They've created a new classification for a crime. And that classification of homicides in those states accounts for 10% of the total increase in homicides.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) No, that's the total number of people dead, including the felony criminal. That's not 2 innocent people a day die because someone decides they need to shoot their gun without provocation. You're concerned with criminals being shot. I'm not. So that skews the data right away. Well, it basically is 2 additional cases where the states with SYG laws wind up filing the case as a murder, not as a justifiable homicide or as a lesser offense (only about 10% of the increase was taken up by justifiable homicides). So yeah, according to those states, yes. Lots more murders. But that doesn't concern people because guns make them "Feel" safer.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 05:25 PM) I would like it on the books that anyone who steps into their home and witnesses their 4 year old being molested by someone has the full, federal and state constitutionally protected right to take a shotgun and blow the guys head off. Hell, make it a mandate that that person is also guaranteed a town parade in his/her honor. That is not vigilante justice. If the Guardian Angels here in town wanted to arm themselves and start shooting any would-be criminal at CTA stations then you might have a point. It just sickens me so much that you guys are concerned with the well being of criminals. Yes, every once and a while there's an unfortunate situation, and hopefully the justice system will work out IF Martin was actually innocent. But that sort of unfortunate result happens all the time and we're ok with it. Police shoot innocent people daily. Why is that ok but private citizens making the same mistake, probably less frequently, such a huge deal? I'm pretty sure that you have the right to shoot an intruder in your home and I haven't here challenged that right, and I don't really plan to. However...yeah, that is "vigilante justice" by it's very definition. And furthermore, not it's not "once in a while". The data I posted yesterday says it's more like "twice a day, on average".

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) Damn right it is possible, and desirable. You enter my house to rip me off or harm my family, then damn straight I want to see a body pile up. There was a case yesterday where a dad caught some perv molesting his 4 year old daughter and killed the guy. Yeah, add that body to the count and I'm fine. But you want the world to be safe for those guys and more dangerous for honest people. The other thing that really drives me nuts about this is that it is again, not what this data says. This data says quite clearly that the more rights people have to use guns, the more dead bodies there are...and that those dead bodies aren't made up for by a decrease in any other crime. So I want to walk down the street with my family, you want to have a gun, you're putting my family in harm's way by doing so, and I have zero recourse.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 04:28 PM) Damn right it is possible, and desirable. You enter my house to rip me off or harm my family, then damn straight I want to see a body pile up. There was a case yesterday where a dad caught some perv molesting his 4 year old daughter and killed the guy. Yeah, add that body to the count and I'm fine. But you want the world to be safe for those guys and more dangerous for honest people. And you want to walk down the streets carrying skittles, damn right the bodies need to pile up.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 04:06 PM) I understand you want less guns. Since the criminals will not give up theirs, you want the law abiding people to give up theirs. I disagree. And you're so comfortable with the idea of hundreds of extra dead bodies associated directly with the Castle Doctrine that you simply sit there and deny that it's possible.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) They did not say if someone was killed while committing a crime if that crime was added or not. Other posters went on about other crime stats. If I missed it, I wlould love for you to show it to me. Their data shows a small increase in justifiable homicides associated with the laws and then a large increase in homicides that the states in question judged to be non-justified. Even if they assume that the states are doing things like charging with manslaughter in the case of a possibly justified homicide,t hey still show a significant increase in outright murder. If your hypothesis is true and this is solely a consequence of people having guns when crimes are committed against them, then that means stand your ground laws would make the victim more likely to die in the event of a robbery/assault. They tested 24 different types of crimes to see if any showed a significant decrease in occurrence associated with the passage of expanded castle doctrine laws. There was effectively none (1 showed a 10% decrease, but out of a population of 24 categories that is within error).

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 03:44 PM) Again, without understanding the methods used to arrive at those numbers all we know is increased gun ownership has stopped increases in crimes and there are more dead criminals. We may have also created criminals in the process. So, your excuse, literally, is that it was too much trouble for you to read the study before commenting on it? I guess I should have suspected since you added that bit about not knowing how they classified whether robberies happened. Considering they outline these in that study I linked, and you haven't bothered because you know intrinsically that it must be wrong, I'll drop it here.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 03:31 PM) Then why not legalize drugs too. Its the same idea, criminals are going to have them anyway, so why shouldnt the rest get to enjoy them. I'm game, just regulate them and make it so that you can't have them on the streets, you have to keep them safely in your own home and can't operate other things when they're present and impacting your judgement. Much like guns.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) You should have to prove you meet the minimum legal requirements to vote. Here is an easy bottom line for me. Criminals have guns and commit crimes. One solution is we should take the guns away from the honest people so the criminals will not be hurt. Maybe the criminals will even stop carrying guns if honest people didn't have them. That just doesn't make sense to me. Of course this whole conversation was started by a post pointing out that honest people having more guns present leads to more people getting killed and no change in the crime rate. I'd say an equally easy bottom line is that more guns = more dead people and no change in crime. Because that's what the statistics say.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) The impediments to carrying and using are not effective on the criminals, they continue to carry and use. Fact is, most gang bangers live under a constant death penalty. Those impediments are designed to stop victims from protecting themselves, from sportsman from enjoying their pastime, and honest people from enjoying a nice hobby. You are correct though, things do not escalate if only the criminals have guns. The victim is killed. Only one life lost, not two if the victim gets a lethal shot off. Like in the case that gave rise to this thread. The right guy was killed. (Seriously, read your own post. it's ludicrous. If both people have guns, two lives are lost, because they both get shots off perfectly aimed, simultaneously?)

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:49 PM) Sure there would. Just not attempted burglary. The police would be busy filling out a report on the shooting. I can't see the cops saying "I know this guy is dead, but we ought to charge him with breaking and entering so the crime stats are accurate"? Maybe they do, and it would be useful, but it just doesn't seem like that is how it would work. But you don't have to file charges for there to be a report of the attempted robbery, in fact it would likely be the exact opposite. If a person is robbed, files charges, and the perpetrator is never caught, is that not a robbery? No charges are filed if the case remains unsolved. Same standard.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:46 PM) That statistic has to be flawed IMO, if anything the USA has shown consequences are not a great deterrent in stoping crime compared to other countries. But statistics also show that the presence of a gun consistently inflames situations and makes a violent outcome more likely in the event of a confrontation, regardless of who initiates it. If you remove the impediments to carrying and using a gun, then you wind up with more people carrying and more using.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:44 PM) I'm surprised they track that if there will not be an arrest or even an investigation of the burglary. If one of the 2 people winds up killed you don't think there'd be a report filed?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:40 PM) But my point is the skills in those courses don't provide you with anything. College education should be more focused, and SOME schools do that, but not all. "Business" could apply to anything, how can a degree in "business" classes provide you with any skills in the real world? Same with political science. If you consider the alternative though, how many people really know the career they're getting into when they start college, or even when they finish? Isn't the usual statistic that most people wholly change careers 4+ times between college and retirement?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) I know it is unlikely, but havent Sandusky and Amendola maintained that he is going to take the stand? I know it's obviously a long shot, but when you're in a case facing a dozen accusers or so, don't you almost have to put him on the stand just as the hail mary to see if somehow he can come off as more credible than them? Unless somehow the defense dismantles most of the other witnesses, which so far they haven't done.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 01:37 PM) But THOSE schools tend to be non-union staffed and considered 'for profit' schools, so according to all sorts of government bodies, they are bad. They're bad because they do a terrible job, cost a ton of money, and leave a huge fraction of their "graduates" completely unprepared for anything, to the point where if they had any requirements for "graduates actually have the skills required for their jobs", they'd all be shut down. Edit: And very few universities have any union presence these days, so I'm not sure why that slam even gets included.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 10:47 AM) How has his defense been subpar? He's generally hit like s***, but his defense is still plus to great and he's still driving in a lot of runs. Not worried about Ramirez. Still the same basic issues. Occasional mental lapse (see the Alexei in a rundown while the runner scores from third play a couple weeks ago), solid range, still seems to play too far in the hole toward 3b and leaves a gap open up the middle (3 singles off Quintana went that way yesterday).

QUOTE (ScottyDo @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 12:38 PM) Tigers defense is truly horrific, and a lot of people called it. I don't understand why that obvious prediction never made it into any publications' projections. I guess it just proves that no matter how much baseball writers adopt metrics, they will never stop being enamored with offense. Be honest though. if the Tigers offense was producing at its potential level, people would be caring a lot less about that defense. You've got Boesch with a .637 OPS, Delmon Young at .690, Peralta at .730, Avila at .767 (down from .895 last year). The only 2 guys who have really overperformed are Austin Jackson and Andy Dirks, and Jackson missed a month with an abdominal strain.