Texsox

QUOTE (mr_genius @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 07:51 PM) The University of Illinois has an excellent engineering department too I hear that advertising is one of the best in the country also.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 04:13 PM) Oh come on, its not about "safe" in that circumstance, its about whether as a society we allow regular people to take justice into their own hands. As much as I would love to say that people should be allowed to be vigilantes, it just isnt in society's best interest to have people acting like Judge Dredd. If someone is threatening myself or my family, if someone is harming my daughter, this isn't about justice, this is about stopping a crime as it is occurring. No one is being a judge, jury, or executioner. They are stopping someone from attacking someone. They are potentially saving a life. Imagine if I walked by and someone was getting stabbed and I said, I'm not here to judge. Y'all just keep going, I am going to find a judge and have him decide . . .

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.

And thank you Balta, guns and balanced budgets are the only time I can be a good Republican in a discussion.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 03:16 PM) 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. 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.

You want less guns. The only people who will give them up are honest people who do not want to break the law. That is a simple fact. That will make it safer for criminals, I whole heartily agree. And now that criminals have no worries about someone carrying a gun, that will make everyone safer? All we have to do is hand over our possessions to criminals and no one gets hurt. And that is really the world you want to live in? Where people have to bow down, run and hide, from some kid who wants to rob them?

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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:51 PM) 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. 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.

Just wondering if you added up all the people in the workforce with college degrees and all the people without. Who is reporting to who? Are there more college degrees reporting to non college or more non college reporting to college degrees? When you enter the workforce what do you bring? There are certainly a lot more things than education. But education is the gate keeper to many positions, not just entry level. To be a pharmaceutical sales rep for most companies you have to have a B.S. degree. That degree didn't teach you to be a sales rep. But the companies have found that people with those degrees work out better more often than people without. Of course there are some people that could kick ass at that job without a degree. But when you are hiring lots of people you need some quick filters to weed out the thousands of applicants.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:30 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) Though only one is a constitutional guarantee. It is interesting to see the contrasts between this debate and the one when any requirements are placed on voting. It'a an interesting point. Are you suggesting that a constitutional guaranteed right have lesser or greater requirements? I could see it being easier to argue they should have lesser, but I don't believe that is desirable.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:22 PM) Though only one is a constitutional guarantee. It is interesting to see the contrasts between this debate and the one when any requirements are placed on voting. 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) In a perfect world no one would have guns, but you cant close Pandora's box. Id be more fine with people owning guns if they had to go through mandatory training. I would to. In Texas there is a pretty solid course before you can carry a concealed weapon. I certainly believe it should be as hard to get a license for a gun as it is to get a license to drive.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 02:02 PM) 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?) You said more guns escalate the violence and I agreed. When only the criminal has a gun, all the victim can do is run and get shot in the back. Unlike in the movies, most people do not die instantly from gun shot wounds. So one guy gets shot and while down shoots the other. We have escalation. Fact is, if you feel better holding your car keys when a bad guy points a gun at your family and I feel better holding a gun, I think I should have that option and you should have your choice.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 01:55 PM) I always have people who are in love with guns tell me states that allow you to carry a gun have lower crime rates but never bothered to look up the statistic myself. And I'm not certain that stat is even relevant. For a hypothetical example if I happen to carry a weapon and never get robbed, my crime rate is zero. Do I care that a thousand other people who do not carry are robbed? I would be carrying to protect my family. If they are safe, I have accomplished my goal. Too bad there isn't a stat comparing crime rates of those that carry versus those that do not.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) 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. If that was the only crime committed, I agree it would be written up. What I am suggesting is when the police arrive and there is a person lying in a pool of blood dead, the police will be investigating that crime and would not also file a report on the burglary. But I have not tried to find a source. They would have to investigate the shooting and in that investigation the claim of breaking and entry, etc. would have to be investigated, so maybe they do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 01:49 PM) 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. 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.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 01:46 PM) If one of the 2 people winds up killed you don't think there'd be a report filed? 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.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 11:31 AM) We have a fundamental difference with our belief in humans. I believe humans are imperfect and prone to mistakes. A bullet is also a cheap price for an innocent victim who is killed when someone misses their intended target. 1 innocent life is not worth 700 criminals. I'm not so certain. We allow police to have weapons and they have killed innocent people. Are you suggesting we should disarm them? I'm not certain that the public has any worse a track record than the police.

I'm surprised they track that if there will not be an arrest or even an investigation of the burglary.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 12, 2012 -> 05:52 PM) Oh, and study out of Texas A&M finds statistically significant 7 to 9 % increase in homicide rate associated with establishment of "Stand your Ground" laws, with no statistically significant impacts on other crimes (burglary, assault, etc.) That translates to ~ 500 to 700 additional homicides per year across the 23 states that currently have passed that law. They conclude that the presence of those laws lowers the expected consequences of using deadly force, leading to greater use of it. Do they charge a potential killer with murder if the potential victim kills them first? If you kill a burglar, does the now dead burglar get charged with burglary? I don't think so. Don't defend yourself and get killed - rising murder rates. Defend yourself, kill the criminal, stagnant or lower crime rates. I am seeing 700 criminals being removed from society at the bargain basement price of a bullet. People, take back your neighborhoods. Stand and defend don't hide from criminals.

I wonder what everyone majored in when they went to high school. For many positions a college degree fulfills the same role. College isn't a vocational school, it isn't always a job training program. Some employers are looking for employees who have a deeper and wider range of knowledge than a HS graduate. Those future employees demonstrated they can world to achieve a longer term goal, voluntarily. It can be easy, very easy, it can also be very affordable. I'm certain that America's future is more dependent on a higher skilled, higher trained workforce than a less educated one. We will lose our asses to China and other less skilled countries for those jobs. We need to leverage our education system into a stronger future. Instead we seem to be trying to lower our incomes and lower our standard of living.

The only part of the article that kind of bothered me was he kept mentioning how the lines were rehearsed and like movie script or something.

He has the potential to make us forget about Crede. Potential is a tough mistress. Crede, for a stretch played as well as any 3rd baseman since I have been a Sox fan. However, there is another guy in the dugout that was better longer. If Beckham can avoid busted ankles (Ventura), knees (Baines), and backs (Crede), he could have a very nice, solid, mlb career.

I almost hate going to the beach and having to miss the next five weeks.