Texsox

This goes in cycles. It may be frustrating now, but once you do start working that degree will help you advance.

Famous people get invited into deals all the time to add credibility, contacts, or whatever. I am trying to think of what may be in there that would prove that Paterno knew more about the abuse than has been confirmed. Payments to the abused was one idea I had, but they would let the media know. So that probably isn't it.

I am a little confused on the Ozzie vote. It could mean that Oz is a joke, poor manager, not liked, and not respected because of it. Or, it could mean he is much better than he is given credit for and the delta between the respect he deserves and what he receives, is greater than any other manager.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 12:11 PM) For this trial its irrelevant. From the beginning I thought McQueary was not being 100% forthright about the situation. This may be an issue if none of the victims stepped forward, but when youve got X witnesses who are all going to say Sandusky messed with them, its really going to be hard for a jury to believe that they were all lying, especially with the strange hand written messages from Sandsuky. Plus its unlikely Sandusky takes the stand, so there really is going to be little defense. Mainly just that these kids are making it up and it didnt happen. For whatever reason, I have disliked and never trusted McQueary from the start. I felt he deserved a bigger share of the blame for the entire situation.

The problem with the stats, IMHO, is they lump all gun owners together. There are violence junkies who dream of shootouts, and sportsman who dream of the perfect kill shot on a whitetail. There are folks who carefully clean their weapons and lock them up in gun safes each night and (IMHO) crazies who sleep with a gun under their pillow with a few more in easy to access positions. You can see how attitude can affect your individual chance of the kinds of dangers you have outlined. Just as a calm 50ish woman driving a corvette versus a 17 year old guy. You can give the stats on people dying in corvette accidents all you want, but if you were a betting person the odds are the 50ish woman is much less likely to die than the 17 year old male. That's common sense. I am far less likely to have a situation escalate as you describe because I would choose the path of retreat if there is one. There are other people who are looking for a confrontation. They are more likely to have a situation like started this thread happen. But they are the tiny minority. Let's not screw over the majority to help a few crazies and criminals. And Balta, I will try to raise my level of discussion here. I realize I was giving it short attention. You bring up some excellent points. But work in a gun shop for a month and you will be both scared and relaxed about gun owners.

You are taking away guns from honest citizens who do not do any of the things you mention. Out of the millions and millions of firearms in the US, very few are ever used by honest people in the manner you are outlining. After you take them away from the honest citizens, you made the world much safer for criminals. Do you believe criminals will be less violent once they have no fear of someone shooting back? I understand you have this fear of being shot by an honest person who mistakes you for a criminal. I fear more being shot by a criminal. I am offering the real world example of the most likely scenario that I would use my gun for self protection, an intruder in my home. I'm not going to be following some suspect in my neighborhood, I'm not going to be walking around with my gun. There are millions more like me. You choose to dismiss this as just an anecdote. And respond with stats. Since most of the stats do not apply to my unique situation, and include such craziness as following someone as part of a neighborhood watch, I can safely ignore those stats. Same as I can ignore stats that show how likely I am to freeze to death while snowmobiling. You will calmly tell the intruder you respect his safety and do not have a gun in the house and to please leave. I will explain I have two guns and will begin using them in two seconds if he doesn't get his ass out of my house. We both feel safer that way. You worry that my situation will escalate with both of us firing guns in the house. I believe the intruder will leave, in a hurry. I am also betting he is not carrying a gun, most home invaders do not. I believe the chance of violence escalating is greater in your case when he knows he has a chance to overpower you. I do not wish to bet my safety on hiding, the benevolence of criminals or the speedy response by police to find my address and pick the best response.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 13, 2012 -> 07:43 PM) 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. Again, you believe there are too many guns and you want to take away the guns from the honest, law abiding citizens so that only the criminals will have guns. That makes you feel safe. You think smugly that the criminal that breaks into your home will treat you nicely because you can't protect yourself. Perhaps you will take him around, show him where your valuables are, and make him your friend. After all, the important thing is that no one gets hurt. Balta, this really isn't worth debating any further. You believe you are safer hiding in the dark, waiting on the police to come save you. I want a fighting chance against a home invader. People have been killed both ways. Defenseless and fighting it out. It all depends on how you want to go. I'd rather not depend on the generosity of a criminal or the speedy response of police.

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.