Jenksismyhero

In summation, Trubisky looks decent, the Bears are still crap.

QUOTE (TaylorStSox @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 12:37 PM) You could probably say the same thing about half of Hollywood execs. I'm sure Weinstein isn't unique. Bingo. "Hey baby, I can make you a star..." I'm sure that stuff happens daily. I don't know why, because these fools continue to do it, but i'm always amazed at the hubris, like this s*** wouldn't eventually come out? Even one event isn't acceptable, but perhaps he was a creep and took things too far or whatever, call it a one time mistake of your life. But 8 settlements? Come on. And the board of his company getting praise for ousting him. Where were they after settlement 2, 3, 4 etc.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 9, 2017 -> 12:58 PM) It is funny the guy who rips everyone else and if applicable, never forgets to mention their ratings, has the worst ratings. #fakeratings

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 11:53 AM) If you are telling that schools will say no to these guys, I am going to laugh in your face. Some won't be eligible, so I could see a lot of schools saying thanks but no thanks

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 11:27 AM) So anyway I buy that tobacco and guns are different, I don't think the lying about effects is that different as I do think they as an industry have tried extremely hard to prevent any try research on how to prevent gun violence. Sure, they try to spin bad results, every company does that. But "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" is vastly different from "smoking is completely healthy! Light em up, including you, young Johnny! That's a good boy!"

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 11:21 AM) They have basically bought and paid for politicians to not allow the CDC to communicate these effects (via risk rates) including not allowing them to tell parents what additional risk a firearm in the home may cause. And as I said to Balta yesterday, the risk is patently obvious - death. Guns are dangerous tools. Guns kill. It's a zero sum game. If you have a gun in your home, there is a risk. You don't need a study to tell you that.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) Their other function being..... Sport? Hunting? Your general point that attitudes change with regard to American traditions is well taken, but comparing guns and tobacco doesn't really work. Tobacco fell out of favor because it was (1) harming/killing a large number of people (far more than guns) and (2) the tobacco companies lied for decades about the harmful effects. I'm not aware of any gun manufacturer claiming that their guns are perfectly safe tools that don't harm people or don't have the potential to harm people.

We basically have to pray that Underwood makes an immediate impact this season and recruits take notice. The non-conference schedule is a joke. So as usual it will come down to whether they can reach .500 in the Big Ten.

Illinois lost out on Nolley too.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 05:23 PM) Tobacco was American as apple pie and baseball at one point, and then we got smarter. I’m hoping that happens eventually here as well. It’s just sickening how many killlig devices we have out there. Make every new gun or rifle have smart features. Eventually the dumb ones will phase out or will be super expensive. Yeah but tobacco is harmful 100% of the time. Guns are not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 10:58 AM) The biggest problem with that concept is that the results are very likely going to come back and overwhelmingly say that having any access to a gun puts the life of you and your family in much greater danger, from both violence and from suicide, and that no one should have these things in their home. And if the results came back saying that, people just wouldn't believe it. it's only a solution if you're willing to listen to the results. 1) this is a pretty obvious conclusion. Owning a car increases your likelihood of being in an auto-accident, ban cars! 2) who cares? It's a choice. Give people the info they need if you really want to (though, see #1, it's common sense). If you have someone in your family that has rage/anger issues and/or is suicidal or has depression or anxiety, probably not the best idea to have guns readily available.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 05:30 PM) Couple things really quick here: 1) Isn't a FOID only a requirement to purchase a gun in Illinois? Also, to the extend that a FOID card is a national thing (I honestly don't know), who is actually monitoring and enforcing sales that don't comply? Purchase and possess. If you have a gun in your home you need a FOID card. I'm not sure if all states require them, but most do. I'm fine making that federal though. And in terms of sales, in Illinois there's a hotline you can call and give a FOID number and they'll verify if it's accurate. That's also how gun shops verify that you are legally able to buy a gun. I don't think the two are exactly the same. You don't take a driver's test to prove you can operate a car, you take it to prove you know the rules of the road. But regardless, i'm 100% behind mandatory training/certification for obtaining a FOID card, which is the legal requirement to using/possessing a gun. I'm sure Alpha or someone who's more into guns than me can speak to this, but a lot of this is already in existence from my understanding. Yeah, you're not registering the gun and the buyer and seller information on a national database, but there are still laws that need to be followed. I'm not super opposed to your suggestion here, but again I ask at the end of the day what does it solve? We're having this conversation not because of random crime using firearms but because of mass shooting tragedies, the vast majority of which involved people buying guns legally. The fact that we can, after the fact, trace the purchase of guns this guy used just goes to show a lot of this registration.tracing stuff is already happening. It doesn't stop anything though, so you're just forcing the 99% of gun owners to jump through a hoop. Like I said, i'm fine with training/certification requirements because that's just a sensible thing to do. I'm fine with limiting high capacity magazines. You can have fun shooting auto/semi auto weapons somewhere. You don't need to be shooting 100's of rounds at a time doing it though. I'm fine creating some kind of gun limit - there's no reason someone needs to own 20 types of the same gun unless you've got some good credentials (e.g., you're a certified seller or a collector or something that can be proven). I'm fine increasing the penalties, both civil and criminal, for people who make straw purchases and/or people/gun shops that don't do any sort of adequate background checks. I'm absolutely behind banning any felon, undocumented immigrant and/or anyone receiving mental health treatment from obtaining guns. I'm fine with the various waiting periods on gun purchases. I'm open to limiting sales at gun shows, though I don't really think that's fair to the gun companies or legitimate gun owners. So maybe more about tightening up how purchases can be made. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. I believe in Illinois all gun sales require a bill of sale and you're supposed to keep that record for 10 years. Not 100% on that though. I'm fine making that a requirement if it's not. You should be able to prove when you sold a gun, what type of gun, and the seller.

QUOTE (Tony @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 05:17 PM) My question is this..why are guns able to be traded and sold "privately"? That to me seems like a gigantic loophole that I can't wrap my head around. I'm very anti-firearm, but I understand the realistic limitations of a ban. But aside from buying them at a registered firearm distributor, why are people allowed to buy guns "privately"? I'm genuinely asking. Because you cut out the middle man? Why do people sell their cars privately? Because the seller can usually get more than at a dealer and the buyer can pay less. Same with guns.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 04:46 PM) Couple of practical applications: 1) If firearms have to be titled and registered, then there's an easy mechanism to ensure that people are competent to own a gun when they buy a gun. Before my father-in-law took me shooting with him, he made me watch a safety video and spend a couple hours working on safety before he was comfortable taking me to the range. I don't think everyone is that cautious about guns. But if you had to take a firearm safety test before owning a gun, that would go a long way toward making sure that firearm owners respect the tool. I dunno, you title and register your car, doesn't mean you're a good driver. If you're going with a training/certification route, make that a requirement for getting your FOID card. I'm not opposed to this and think it's a good idea, but it's not going to change shooting/death numbers significantly. OK, more paperwork/bureaucracy, more restrictions on you trying to sell the guns. Whose paying for this department of firearms? Seems like a lot of work and a lot of responsibility placed on individuals. Something like this at gun stores I would be fine with. Replace gang banger with just a general criminal. Criminals are already violating laws by using the guns in a manner that is illegal. Bans don't work, they just create black markets. I don't see any difference with guns, especially when you already have a 350 million gun back log. Again, i'm fine limiting gun sales to prevent this type of issue. When a gun is purchased from a store or trade show, the person should have a valid FOID card, mental/background checks should be done to ensure the person buying should have gun to begin with (e.g., anyone with psychotropic medications should be banned, felons should be banned, etc.). But registering/titling doesn't prevent someone from using a gun, and if people are already buying guns legally now, they'll figure out the "legal" way to do it later. So you register and title guns, the same person that legally buys the gun in Indiana legally buys the same gun in Indiana via the registration/titling law you want. That same person still transfers the gun to the eventual criminal. I believe, but am not 100% certain, that you're only allowed to sell a gun privately if you ensure the person buying has a FOID card. I don't think it's a criminal penalty but a civil one. I need to check to see if that's still accurate though. I disagree to a certain extent because it's not just the inability to eradicate crime, it's the inability to appreciably lessen crime coupled with the unfair burden on the vast majority of law abiding gun owners/purchasers. There's a balancing act there.

illinilaw08 - I think the other response to your question is "what will this new law really change? Is it even necessary?" If your aim is to decrease crime, what does a gang banger care if he's carrying an unregistered gun? Or a guy like this mass-murderer. He went through all the steps to legally acquire the guns he used, so he would do the same thing if registration was required. That wouldn't have stopped anything. Some gun laws/changes to existing law I agree with - limiting high capacity magazines, limiting straw purchases, increasing civil/criminal penalties on gun shops, opening up the data for research, etc. But a lot of them are just pointless. Look at the responses in this thread. At the end of the day what anti-gun people want is a total ban and they won't be happy until they get it. And I think that justifies the "fear" on the part of responsible, legal gun owners. As soon as they give an inch, another shooting happens and the anti-gun lobby will demand more until at some point access to guns is extremely limited. I'm not sure i'm on board with a total ban on a type of gun either. I mean I wouldn't lose sleep over it, but while I agree that an auto/semi-auto assault rifle has no utility outside of military use, it's probably awesome as hell to shoot. No one needs a car that can drive 200 mph. It's illegal to drive it that fast in 99.9% of situations. But people still want them because it's fun. And yeah yeah guns are intended to kill while cars are not, but those cars and the morons that drive them are still a danger to the public and still hurt themselves and others using those cars. So why not ban them too? Why not ban alcohol? Why are we allowing bars to serve people that drive knowing that tens of thousands of people will die this year due to drunk driving? Why not change laws to make bars responsible if they serve someone that drove? At some point society is "ok" with unnecessary death. That's why I find the whole twitter/Kimmel response so infuriating. "If you don't agree with a total ban you have blood on your hands!" f*** off. So do you for drinking beer and allowing bars to exist. Get off your soap box.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 11:19 AM) Not really sure where to put this story, but it's brutal. Bleak stuff. They thought they were going to rehab. They ended up in chicken plants I don't like that it's for private industry, but I've been an advocate of more of these programs over jail time. Think if we put low level offenders to work cleaning up vacant lots and graffiti or starting more city beautification programs. They get punished (having to work of their crimes) and the public benefits.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 11:00 AM) How many people have been killed by coyotes and wolves in the US the last 10 years? California has one reported death by coyote. That was in 1981 It's more about livestock protection for certain farmers/ranchers out there.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 10:12 AM) What is the benefit of a 10 year old shooting rifles and shotguns and pistols? In no particular order: 1) Safety/Protection. Rabid animals, predators like Coyotes and Wolves killing your families livelihood, etc. Not everyone lives 10 feet from each other in cities. They actually have to deal with nature. And yes, personal protection from other people. 2) Hunting. It's a good way to teach patience and calmness. Having a 10 year old in 2017 sit out in the middle of nature for 4 hours waiting for a 2 minute window of action would be highly beneficial IMO. 3) I think it's a great way to learn about safety and protocol and responsibility. Most people who are anti-guns have never touched a gun and are afraid of them. Putting them in your hands is an entirely different experience and learning at a young age their awesome power is a good thing. 4) Fun. It's fun as hell to shoot cans or other targets like a Tannerite pack (target with a small explosive that goes boom when you hit it from a distance).

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:41 AM) Guns in the hands of children is something we need more of. If you live in the country, it's actually not a bad idea to teach your kids how to use guns. I'm not saying a 5 year old, but 10, 12, 14, yeah. I did as a kid. Assault rifles, no, but rifles, shotguns, even pistols, yes.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 04:28 PM) Frankly I hope that widens the center for a new party to emerge. +1

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 02:49 PM) Guns per capita in the US has doubled the last 50 years. Except for 2 countries, the US has about triple the guns per capita as any other country. More guns, more murders. Pretty simple. Except murder rates are way, way down. # of guns sold =/= more killings.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 02:44 PM) Well, one thing worth noting is that there have been several hundred cases where >4 people have been shot in a single incident this year alone and we don't hear about most of them other than on page 3 of that area's local newspaper the day after because it is so normal for it to happen. Obviously this case is a different one given the scale, but seriously, a bunch of people getting shot in a single incident and it receiving little coverage is so normal it happens on every day that ends in Y. True. Much like the daily shootings/murders in Chicago, it's just white noise at this point. I wonder if there's an analysis somewhere on those mass shootings. Take out disgruntled people with a relationship to the victims and gang shootings and I wonder how many are truly "random" killings.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 01:08 PM) It turns out it was CNN's fault. A forensic psychiatrist told Fox News on Tuesday morning that CNN was to blame for mass shootings like what transpired in Las Vegas. “I think that CNN’s going to have to answer how they demonize gun enthusiasts and how CNN actually contributes to mass shooting,” Michael Welner said. “And I think that they do. I do wonder what role the mass media has on these cases. Let's assume the media treats these mass shootings as they treat suicides - you never hear about them except in rare circumstances; does that lessen the likelihood that the events would take place? If the sick f***s don't become instant celebrities, do they still have the desire to do it?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 3, 2017 -> 12:19 PM) Keith Olbermann says the NRA should be branded a terrorist organization. click, click, click, click! edit: as in he wants (and will get) those web clicks...

I thought that but then didn't know where to put it.