Texsox

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jul 25, 2015 -> 09:37 PM) I refuse to have hope. I want to. This pitching staff is good enough that if the White Sox offense is even average, they could make it. But something about fool me once... I've lost count how many times this has happened. One day at a time. From something I was reading today

QUOTE (soxfan85 @ Jul 25, 2015 -> 09:43 PM) Minnesota: Have a gut feeling they will fall from grace Toronto: Can't pitch, aren't that far ahead of US, and want one of OUR top pitchers...why would we help them? One game over .500 Tampa: I have no idea how they are where they are...but they will fall. Under .500 Detroit: Can't pitch. Under .500 Baltomore: The only team that concerns me, but they are 2 games under .500 and supposedly NOT selling but going for it. Texas: We will pass them up. Why not just take a shot at this thing? Still over 2 months to go. THIS is what it takes to survive a lifetime of White Sox baseball. That's what I like about you, you dream big!

Sox winner, Cubs no hit. I can rest.

Thank you for all the work you are doing.

QUOTE (Jake @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 11:28 PM) A movie theater is in so many ways an awful place for a shooting to happen and nobody should be able to say with a straight face that a gun carried for self-defense would be useful in that particular situation. Sight is terrible so seeing the gunman will be difficult. Combine the sight problem with the crowd issue and you are taking a huge risk by firing a weapon because there are so few situations in which you can be sure that your bullet will miss innocents if it misses the active shooter. Then we have the secondary issue in that any other heroes in the audience may struggle to figure out which person firing their gun should be trusted. As people start standing and firing their weapons in the crowd, how should everyone else evacuate without waking in front of one of the several active shooters? It's just a very vulnerable position. As for this particular situation, I have some hunch that it may not have been all that premeditated. We know the guy was a hardcore right-wing type, but I don't see how this would accomplish much of anything. He didn't seem to conduct himself like he had a plan. I wonder if this is a situation where this already unstable person heard some audience member make a comment or something and just lost his cool. In the excitement of the moment and in realizing what had been done, he killed himself rather than face the consequences, which is not all that uncommon in these situations. Y'all are perfect at creating a scene where a gun would not be useful. It is also not very useful when held by a cop ten minutes away. It isn't useful in arguably 90%+ of situations in a theater. With a straight face here are a couple situations where it is useful. If I am close enough to see the shooter clearly, perhaps within 10' to 15' a gun would be extremely useful. If you are hiding between the seats pissing your pants and the gunman turns down your row and is standing over you aiming for your head, a gun is extremely useful to you. If they are aiming at your spouse or child, you will really wish you had one. But if you are too far away to safely take a shot at the murderer in the crowd, you are also safer hiding because he will also have little chance to kill you. His best chance is also your best chance, close up. The only situation worse than a shooting in a movie theater would be sitting in front of a guy shooting in a movie theater. All the environmental factors you mention make it a terrible place to shoot someone. To help your hiding you may wish to wear black clothes. But bottom line y'all are thinking about the person carrying and protecting everyone. I'm thinking about carrying and protecting the people immediately around me. If we are far enough away that I don't have a shot, either will the murderer, so we keep hiding, taking cover, trying to flee. If we come face to face with the killer, then y'all hope for the police to save you, I will, with a straight face, believe my gun will be more useful than your ability to do whatever.

It's not all zeros for the Cubs, they did make an error . . . Last chance

Suddenly I'm interested in a Cubs game

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 25, 2015 -> 11:44 AM) Yeah. https://twitter.com/TigersGIFs/status/624729684652257280 That made me lol

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:50 PM) Be honest and think here. In a movie theater, under fire, it's dark, only light is from the screen. You really think that under fire, probably from behind, you could turn around, aim, and get a clean shot off without accidentally hitting the wrong person? While the person has a semi-automatic handgun and can keep pulling the trigger? Per the police, as the crowd was leaving the theater this guy snuck into it and almost got out of the theater before someone stopped the crowd/stopped him. The people fleeing the room didn't identify the shooter as he left the theater with the group. They couldn't tell. Now you're telling me you could honestly figure out who the shooter was with enough accuracy to pull the trigger? The closest example of a mass shooting interacting with a person carrying a weapon I can think of is the Gabrielle Giffords shooting and the person across the street who had the gun nearly shot the wrong person. And that was in the daylight. You paint a scenario that makes you right. Actually 100% right and without any room for argument. Based on your situation there would be little or no chance of helping and a prudent person should not add to the problem by shooting. Your example is so tight that 99% of people would agree with you. Now how about it's the guy in front of me who just stood up and is shooting people in front of him. He's close enough for me to see and touch? I like my chances in my scenario. At some point he is going to turn around and start shooting behind him and I'm next in line. Of all the possible scenarios we can start arguing I will agree that probably 90% would result in fleeing or hiding being the much better option than pulling the trigger. I'll concede that point. But it becomes a rather worthless argument. You can hypothetically argue that every person carrying is going to take stupid shots based on your knowledge of gun owners who have qualified to carry. I'm going to argue that people who are carrying in your situation would not return fire in that scenario. I'll also argue that if you were standing next to the guy and he was aiming for your head, you would wish someone would shoot him first. My approach will be much better than the people who are not carrying who will stand up and run towards the nearest exit, in some cases right at the killer, making the killer's shot even easier. You see if you can make gun owners do stupid stuff in your example why can't I make those not carrying do stupid stuff? Does that prove my case any better?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 03:53 PM) They don't die just because a gun is present. A human action is required. Guns are inanimate objects and do not just go off and hunt people down. Exactly. Of course you could also say that about land mines, bombs, etc. In balance guns were developed and improved to kill things not put holes in paper targets. They were used for survival. You eat better with a gun than a stone tipped spear. The fact that they are versatile and can do other things does not obscure the fact that they are the most efficient killing "inanimate object" that Americans can legally own and use. They kill and they kill really good. Someone mentioned that there are laws on the books to prevent that from happening. Laws do not prevent anything. They never have and never will. If we judge a law by how many people break it, and decide if people break the law it is bad and we don;t need it, we would eliminate every law. We have laws against murder, murder happens. We have laws against robbery, robberies happen. All laws do is establish a punishment for those that break the law.

QUOTE (Big Hurtin @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:50 AM) Yeah, because multiple people having a shootout in a dark theater would've been much better. What did you want the police to do? Ask him politely to surrender? Give me your recipe for make believe. Over the past fifty years we have become conditioned to fear criminals. To believe that only the police can protect us. We've allowed criminals to walk around without fear while the good people of the world lock themselves behind three locks in their own homes. We're enabling criminals while losing our liberty.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:55 AM) Carrying out of anger seems pretty terrible. You aren't angry that a 59 year old guy decided to kill a bunch of people? You aren't angry that some people would rather take other people's stuff than actually get a job and buy it? You aren't angry that parents feel like they can't allow their kids to play unsupervised in their neighborhoods? It's time for the good people to stand up to the criminals instead of hiding in the dark hoping to be saved.

I was just thinking most of the people I know who carry, men and women, don't do it out of fear, but out of anger. They don't want to be cowering under a theater seat praying someone comes and solves their problem. They want to stop the SOB who is terrorizing their community and terrorizing the good people. They want to stand up to the evil instead of hiding in the dark waiting for help to arrive and hoping it is in time. I'm certain there are some who are afraid of criminals and carry out of fear, just as there are people who are afraid of guns and the people who carry them. Perhaps we need better education to bridge some gaps there.

I'll be chiming in on this in a week or two when the first grandbaby is born. My kids are boring now. All they want to do is take me to bars and shows. And those changing boys, you need a supply of these http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywo...sl_8q3ubslohl_b

QUOTE (Brian @ Jul 24, 2015 -> 07:06 AM) I do it all the time and feel comfortable doing so. I chose not to live in fear. I have other problems to worry about. I'm not certain how carrying and living in fear are linked. To me it's like saying I don't wear a seat belt when driving because I chose not to live in fear. I don't lock my doors at night because I chose not to live in fear. It's just a simple safety device like wearing a helmet when skateboarding. I carry because I don't fear a gun. The fear thing is just a silly connection to make in my mind, but I think I get what you are saying. Some security steps may seem severe. A home security system is excessive to some, they might see that as living in fear. Locking doors. Keeping ladders locked up. Car alarms, etc. So maybe we are all living in fear.

And just from memory the "f*** you all I'm leaving!!! posts are never the last

Steff

YASNY

I happened to be looking at a members profile and I noticed it tracks the last post. That got me to thinking we usually don't know when that last post will be. I looked up to popular posters with over 25,000 posts and here is how they left.

I don't know how anyone can go to the movies, or really anywhere in public, without a handgun for protection.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 23, 2015 -> 10:37 PM) Wow. I always knew it was the fear of kidnappers. Nice post. But that also really oversimplifies the situation. Our perception of what a great parent is gets shaped all the time by our society. ChiSox isn't going to the park with his daughter as a bodyguard, but as a dad who wants to spend time with his daughter. As the Donna Reed, Laura Petri, Carol Brady moms began working as the norm there were images of the woman who could earn the bacon, fry it up, and make her man remember he was a man all the while being the same involved in the PTA, packing their lunch, watching games, mom. That also extended to the dads. But we have been growing up with an image of the world as a hostile place filled with bad people who only look out for themselves.

I was just coming to mention the kidnapping angle. There is a 40 year old child disappearance that is just now being prosecuted and they point to that even as the start of the watch your kids all the time generation.