StrangeSox

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Apr 30, 2012 -> 02:12 PM) You're joking. You have to be. Seriously, try saying s*** like that in your workplace, and see how that goes over. Its not about pussified, and everyone here but you and Marty realizes that its Joe who needs to grow up. And talk about being "pussified" - the guy can't say s*** like that to anyone in person of course, he's too afraid to, so he posts it via social media and he's gone before they know about it. Now that is "pussified". America is a bunch of p*****s because open sexism isn't tolerated. Our country is lost.

QUOTE (Tex @ Apr 29, 2012 -> 04:02 PM) Usually by the anti crowd. The anti gun crowd blows guns way out of propertion more than the small minority of legal, law abiding gun owners who think of them as toys to be played with. I've been around a lot of gun owners, soend a lot of time on various Scout gun ranges, and I can't think of one that acts like Balta has painted some gun owners to act. pick up a gun magazine and look at all the toys for the special forces wanna-bes.

This feels similar to the Bears beating San Diego and looking like they're on a roll and then learning Cutler was out for the season.

QUOTE (Soxfest @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 09:39 PM) Sad fact but 100% true pathectic isn't it. Phil Emery is in his first draft running the Chicago Bears but he has not broken an old habit. For the eighth consecutive year, the team has selected a safety, this time grabbing Brandon Hardin of Oregon State in the third round with the 79th overall pick. Chicago Tribune They may have drafted a safety 8 years running, but they haven't worked out. Emery shouldn't be held accountable for Jerry drafting so many busts at the position.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 07:23 PM) Again, gun laws and restrictions only affect law abiding citizens...they do not prevent people that want guns from getting them one way or another, and more often than not, it's those people that use guns incorrectly or illegally. The severe restrictions on automatic weapons has drastically cut down on the availability of those weapons.

Isn't that what he explicitly did with DOMA?

I think Balta meant constant radio contact, not frequently calling the police over petty crap.

It's a reference to Starcraft. Zergs were the bug-type race you could play as. Their units were weak but cheap and quick to build. So you could "zerg rush" your opponent by sending enough troops to simply overwhelm your opponents. This was a tactic used successfully by the opposition force against the US military in the Millennium Challenge 2002.

maybe you have to be using chrome?

google "zerg rush" right now

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:41 PM) I'd like to note, I'm not complaining about police carrying weapons. They're trained constantly on the use of those weapons, and they know that if they choose to use them they're going to face an investigation to make sure that their use was appropriate. In that position, their presence is necessary, and the organization acts like it. I'd argue strongly against the ever-increasing militarization of our police forces thanks to the War on Drugs, but that's another topic.

I'm not going to continue down the road of poor analogies to cars, particularly since I haven't advocated for increased restrictions on gun ownership. But we can and do restrict (generally speaking) non-government organizations and individuals from possessing a wide variety of weapons. I cannot own C4 or cruise missiles or automatic weapons manufactured after 1986. I could safely own a cruise missile if I followed all the safety procedures and protocols, yet we still deem that as an unreasonable risk.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:37 PM) Or, because a kid gets hit and killed by a car, you require a certain level of training, a certain level of safety, you set limits on where and how those devices can be operated, (speed limits), you strengthen those requirements in certain areas (stricter speed limits in residential areas), you require the device to be maintained in proper working condition, and require the installation of various types of safety equipment to try to prevent those incidents. I'm not here telling you that autos should be banned...but I am telling you that the person who tells you he or she is a good driver...isn't. 90% of people are above-average drivers!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:31 PM) And again, this goes back to just about anything that is inherently dangerous to a person's safety, like a car. So because a kid gets hit and killed by a drunk driver we should all be kept from driving cars. That's the logic train you guys are on with this Martin case. Because a kid gets hit and killed by a drunk driver and drunk driving penalties were laughably lax if enforced at all, MADD launched a decades-long campaign to get police and legislatures to address this serious problem and crack down on this unsafe behavior. Comparing it simply to driving cars is silly equivocation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) If I tell myself "I'm safe using it", I'm going to wind up dead. I tell myself "Here are the procedures we have established to take care of this chemical, I'm going to rigorously follow those", and meanwhile, I'm going to be calm but terrified while doing so. And I will not sit here and tell you that I'm safe to use it, unlike whatever other person out there does something different...because it isn't safe to use, having it around puts you in mortal danger, and if you skip or neglect any safety step because you're confident it's ok...you're going to die. See I'm not terrified when I'm using a power saw. I'm careful and cautious, but I'm not scared or afraid. This is true of the few times I've handled firearms as well. I was careful and deliberate in every action, but I wouldn't say I experienced fear. Where I won't disagree with you is that there are many people who are careless or at least less-than-stringently-careful with their firearms and that it leads to death and/or injury for them and others.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:17 PM) Hydrofluoric acid. If you get a drop of that on your skin, you won't feel it. Until 3 hours later when you're in ungodly pain because the stuff has leached down to your bones and begun to dissolve them, pulling the calcium out towards your skin. It's an industrial chemical we use constantly in sample preparation. Thanks for the nightmares for the next few weeks.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:16 PM) So basically your argument is that anyone that uses a gun will use it negligently, thus it's better just to ban them altogether. His argument is that guns are inherently dangerous and he would prefer that it not be legal to carry them around on your person all the time or leave them lying around your house loaded and unlocked.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:15 PM) You're a better googler than me, but i'd be willing to bet a lot that there are certainly more injuries from power tools than guns. That s*** happens daily, especially on work sites. Deaths, eh, the accidental discharge death has to be pretty rare, but i'm less sure on that. You'd have to look at some kind of use or ownership ratio.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:06 PM) Their intended use doesn't matter when you're debating whether something is inherently dangerous. Guns and power tools are inherently dangerous and life threatening if not used properly. If used properly, unless you win the product liability lottery, both can (and are) used safely, without issue, for the vast, vast majority of people. What are the number of accidental gun injuries and deaths compared to power tool injuries and deaths? They're both dangerous tools, but guns more so.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) Certainly is for me. The end result of not doing so is potentially a serious injury. Taking steps to avoid that out of a fear of suffering a serious injury is what I'd classify it as. Fear, to me, means an almost overwhelming emotional reaction, not a rhetorical statement. I understand what you're saying, but I would not use the same language to describe it. Nor does any professional safety culture I've seen. I wouldn't describe the healthy respect for the dangers of a particular tool or piece of equipment as being afraid of that tool or equipment.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 02:00 PM) Why the hell not? You're speculating that more justifiable killings (by number) means more preventable deaths. Why can't I speculate that all of those people were going to be murdered but not for their justifiable killing? Who stops to consider legal consequences in legitimate kill-or-be-killed cases? I seriously doubt that the legal ramifications of the SYG law crossed Zimmerman's mind when he decided to shoot Trayvon. The only way to make that argument work would be to assume that they would have been given the death penalty and killed by the state.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 01:58 PM) I don't necessarily agree with this. A router or table saw or chop saw is an exposed metal blade that can slice off a hand with little effort. To hurt yourself with a gun requires more steps (turning the power on v. unlocking the safety and pulling the trigger). Guns are designed to fire a projectile at high speed with the intent to kill or seriously damage the target. Accidental discharges are not extremely rare events, and sometimes a gun can just blow up (this literally happened this week during training some co-workers were providing). Not all guns have safeties, either, such as Glocks. Guns are different in that their design intent is to fire a lethal projectile. My table saw is designed to cut wood.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) So what motivates you to wear them then? Not an emotion I'd equate to fear.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Apr 27, 2012 -> 01:48 PM) And what evidence do you have that those weren't justifiable killings? You're going from 12 to 35. That's not exactly a gigantic number. If it went from 12 to 300 you'd have a better argument. I sense some google searching for previous-years statistics in my future! No, you can't.