caulfield12

QUOTE (Marty34 @ Jan 8, 2013 -> 09:03 AM) Saw a projection that had the Sox as a 77 win team right now. I think that's a fair assessment. 77-85 wins is probably where 15-18 major league teams come into nearly every season projected at... They're definitely not in rebuilding mode, more like "win as you go" while trying to get younger and cheaper simultaneously. Even with Josh Hamilton signed to play CF and DeAza in LF, you would be hard pressed to put up 90 wins unless Danks comes back at 100%, the bullpen is better than major league average and the Sox could also stay relatively healthy. FWIW, if the Tigers let Brennan Boesch go, it wouldn't be surprising to see him end up in a Sox uniform as LH insurance for Viciedo.

QUOTE (bhawk99 @ Jan 7, 2013 -> 11:07 PM) CF A. Jackson 7 vs DeAza 6 slight advantage Jackson LF T. Hunter 6 vs Tank 7 almost a wash but I'll say slight advantage Tank RF Q. Berry/ A. Garcia 6 vs Rios 8 advantage Rios 1B Prince 9 vs Paulie 8 sorry to say but I have to give advantage to Prince 2B R. Santiago 4 vs Beckham 5 both suck but because of D slight advantage Beckham SS J. Peralta 5 vs Alexi 7 advantage Alexi 3B KM. Cabrerra 10 vs Keppinger 7 blowout advantage Cabrerra C A. Avila 5 vs Flowers 4 Flowers is unproven advantage Avila DH V. Martinez 8 vs Dunn 8 push Ace Verlander 10 vs Sale 9 Sale is very good but Verlander gets the advantage Rest of Starters Det 6 Sox 7 slight advantage Sox Bullpens Det 5 Sox 5 push Bench Det 5 Sox 3 Sox have no bench Manager Det 6 Sox 4 Robin still learning In my opinion and home made formula Detroit wins 92 games and the Sox win 88 [maybe enough for wildcard but doubtful] 4 games Detroit advantage is catchable if Rick Hahn makes the right moves. Come on Rick we are counting on you. I would probably pick Dunn over Victor Martinez, simply because Martinez is coming off a devastating injury. Bruce Rondon is currently projected to be the Tigers' closer, and that's a HUGE gamble to go with a rookie when you have the nearly complete roster that Detroit does. Alburqurque and Coke would be back-up options for now, as well as Villarreal, Benoit and Dotel. Very, very deep bullpen...with Drew Smyly a capable back-end of the rotation guy but currently slated as the long man. Considering I'm not 100% confident in either Addison Reed or N. Jones, and the fact that Thornton might be traded, a definite edge goes to DET for now, although Rondon could certainly blow up like Valverde did last season. Infante was disappointing defensively for the Tigers, but he was a better offensive player than Beckham last year, so it's probably a wash, with the "upside/potential" tag no longer quite so bright for Gordo. Quintin Berry and Andy Dirks are likely to platoon in LF unless they decide to go with Avisail Garcia everyday...doubt Garcia will stay in the bigs as a player getting only 30% of the at-bats. Brennan Boesch, Danny Worth and Darin Downs might be on the outside looking in for roster spots. If they waive him, he would be a good pick-up for the White Sox to replace Dan Johnson and take some ab's from Viciedo. Peavy vs. Scherzer (based on the 2nd half of last season, BIG edge to Scherzer) Fister vs. Danks (edge to Fister, as Danks is coming off an injury and Fister has been close to great when healthy for the Tigers) A. Sanchez vs. Floyd (edge to Tigers) Porcello vs. Quintana/Santiago (slight edge to Tigers) There's just no way that you can give the Sox rotation 2-5 an advantage over the Tigers at this point either. Scherzer was close to as good as Verlander in the 2nd half and led the AL in K's, whereas Peavy was one of the 5 best pitchers in the AL the first half and faded down the end a bit. Fister and Sanchez were both great near the end of the season...whereas Gavin is Gavin. Porcello has disappointed, but he's their version of Jon Garland and could have a breakout season. 90% of scouts in baseball would pick him over either Quintana or Hector Santiago. Heck, you could also argue Drew Smyly over either Quintana or Santiago.

Reed and Jones are going to be keys. The bullpen was atrocious the first two months, and that really hurt us in the end. If you look at our starters, the only areas where you can look for improvement are probably going to be Viciedo (doubles, walks, batting average), Ramirez and Beckham. Flowers, there's just not many who are going to go out on a limb and say he'll come close to replicating AJ's 2012 season offensively, although some might argue their 2013 numbers could be similar. Hopefully, DeAza can stay healthy and hit at something between his 2011 and 2012 numbers. You can also look at the overall numbers for 3B going up, because they were atrocious simply due to the first 2-3 months of Morel and then Hudson manning the position. Anything over a 700+ OPS would be great, but then you also have to consider the defensive shortcomings of Keppinger as well.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 6, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) Hey, I finally found this article randomly today. I kept wanting to find this, because I think it's a fascinating statistic. It's quite well established that crime in general has been dropping in this country since about 1990, even in places like Chicago that are quite messy these days. At the same time, homicides by guns have been dropping, and the number of guns owned by people have been increasing. The increasing gun ownership and decreasing homicides might well have been something people would argue is a sign that more guns = a safer country. Turns out there's one more element buried in there; emergency care. The number of people shot in this country, per year, has skyrocketed by 50% as the number of guns has gone up. Basically, more guns and more people carrying them = more people getting shot, and the fewer deaths has been almost entirely due to improved emergency health care. Of course, it's hard to track the numbers exactly since the government has banned anyone from tracking them, so they had to go to hospital stats to get those numbers (ridiculous again), but 10,000 more people hospitalized from gunshots per year is a huge signal. Found that to be fairly startling. Makes a lot of sense. The simplest explanation being the best... Just like the idea out there that Asians are so much better than anyone else at white. Well, turns out that many linguists and social scientists believe this is largely due to the ease and brevity of the pronunciation/lack of syllables in the words for 1-100 in languages like Chinese/Korean/Japanese. Malcolm Gladwell detailed this idea in great detail in "Outliers."

Jeff, Who Lives At Home...it wasn't bad. I expected more, and if you want a movie about mid-life or early life crises...maybe Steve Carell movies are better, lol. Seeking A Friend for the End of the World, Dan in Real Life, and Crazy Stupid Love are all "feel down/happy ending" (strange to say, for the first one) that are better in that genre/category. BTW, I like Jason Segel a lot (especially I Love You, Man! and Forgetting Sarah Marshall especially) but he can get very old in a Jack Black-ish kind of way. Hard to explain. If he has a well-written part, he's great. But he can't make a bad part watchable, like some uber-talented performers.

Yeah, Signs got a bit hokey as soon as the aliens actually appeared, but it was 10X better than The Village. Swing away, that was a ridiculous line that just didn't really fit at that point. It's like he was trying to force a baseball metaphor where it didn't belong. I saw Lady in the Water and The Last Airbender...bad, bad, bad. And what was the one with Mark Wahlberg, The Happening? ON THE PLUS SIDE, finally was able to watch Zero Dark Thirty and Lincoln. I think I'll have to rewatch both again to decide on Best Picture/Director. Definitely, Academy Awards for DDL and Jessica Chastain, who's suddenly become the IT actress of the moment. Sometimes, she reminds me of Kate Blanchette, but with more talent and depth. The first time I remember seeing her was The Tree of Life, yet another movie you have to watch again to fully appreciate. About to watch THE PERKS of BEING a WALLFLOWER. And just saw Hobbit in 3D/IMAX and it was so much better than on a regular screen...never a huge Tolkein fan, like many, dutifully went to all the LOTR's movies, was a bit bored by the pace in the beginning but love the conclusion/climax of the series. Hobbit feels the same way.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 22, 2012 -> 09:15 AM) You're right. We poor white people have really been through a lot... why do people insist on persecuting us? Life is SO HARD! If only we made more money than women and minorities... if only we had more opportunity.... if only the members of congress really cared about the issues that matter to white America... *sigh* PS, the 60s we're 50 years ago. Your math is off a bit. 70-75% of Romney's infamous "47%" is white, after all. Receiving benefits/assistance, but not paying anything into the system.

Post of the Year 2. Where do you get this stuff? Conspiracy Theory much? 9/11 was planned by the Democrats/liberals, so was Pearl Harbor and the global financial crisis. Wait, forgot the Trilateral Commission and anything have to do with Ron or Rand Paul or the Federal Reserve. Maybe we should go back to the time of the Constitution, when black people were also considered slaves/property and constituted 3/5th's of a person? It would be better if only white landed gentry/plantation owners could vote for the Senate. Those were the days! Damn, you found out about the CIA funneling all that drug money to get all black people (they only live in the ghettos, never the suburbs or exurbs) hooked on crack cocaine so their children will end up siphoning off more resources from the Federal Government. Let's forget that the tax rates in the US are actually among the bottom quartile of all industrialized nations in terms of marginal tax rates. Were you at Ruby Ridge or on the Grassy Knoll?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/opinion/....html?hpt=hp_t1 How the NRA is missing the boat and a huge opportunity

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 09:32 PM) Life of Pi was easily one of the most impactful films I've ever seen. It's life affirming, while simultaneously challenging everything you believe in (or in my case don't believe in). World view, consider yourself shifted. Can you explain a bit more? I've seen it in 3D (Chinese), online and read the book, just curious what you mean "challenges everything you believe in" as it was a work of fiction, in the end.

QUOTE (Tex @ Dec 21, 2012 -> 05:24 AM) Would you arrest the bank president if the bank gets robbed? I believe there should be minimum security standards and reporting that should be required and a failure to conform would results in fines and/or jail time. But to arrest victims of crimes doesn't make sense. The laws should include what the dealer has control over, they have no control over criminals. Not sure that's an analogous situation. Ultimately, a bank president's job is quite different from a gun dealer's. How many times has missing money led directly to multiple deaths/homicides? How many times has a stolen/missing/lost rifle or handgun led to fatalities? You could argue that the principal of a school where there's a shooting should also be fired because the school wasn't safeguarded enough to prevent an attack, but nobody would agree with that decision.

QUOTE (ptatc @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 07:59 PM) This why these discussions become meaningless. You don't have to make large sweeping generalizations to distract from meaningful discussion. No one implied there was any laziness or lack of effort in anything just a different opinion on what should be restricted and how to accomplish it. Which is why we've almost entirely lost the moderate wing of both parties, certainly where the majority of the country has been for the past 20-30 years, essentially moderate or fiscal conservatively but with more compassion for the poor and downtrodden than Mitt Romney was believed to possess (something like a mixture of Colin Powell and what "W" was perceived by many to be in 2000 when he was elected, with a dash of Clintonian post-1994 centrism thrown in). It's pretty ironic that the poster here who tried to bridge both sides of the discussion was applauded and also derided for naivete and posturing/placating/being a politician.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 06:09 PM) 1) How did I in anyway advocate "gun grabbing?" I made a pretty simple point that when someone gets pissed off and sees red, if they have a gun, the damage is way worse than if they throw a punch. Do you believe that you should be able to carry in a bar? At the zoo? In a courthouse? At work? At the Cell? Do you believe there should be any restrictions to when and where people should be allowed to carry firearms? 2) Here's what I would do (note that there is no way the political will exists in this country to get any of this enacted). I would limit magazine size. I would make harsher punishments for unlawful possession. I would take a lot of the federal money that goes to the DEA and put it toward a war on illegal possession of firearms (targeting high crime areas like those referenced by Alpha earlier in the thread). I would restrict when and where people can carry. Driving to the firing range? Lock your gun in the trunk on the way there. Going to the grocery store? Leave it at home (locked preferably, but that's not a Pandora's Box I'm willing to open). I like the idea of a national registry like we have with cars. It would probably make it easier to legally shift title to guns (someone passes away who owned a number of guns, keep people off Craigslist to make the transaction to sell those). Would make it easier to report and track a stolen weapon. Nationalize licensing of guns. Make the test to pass a full day written and practical. Make people re-take every three years. I would have the feds institute a large scale by back program annually. You are done with your gun, don't want it anymore, get it off the street and let the feds melt it down. None of the suggestions above infringe upon your ability to enjoy your gun. You get to take it to the range. You get to protect your crops and your livestock. You get the feeling of security that comes with having a gun in your nightstand. You don't, however, get to put my life at risk if I say the wrong thing at the barbershop or in line at the grocery store. Do the things I listed above eliminate gun violence? No. But they are a step to making things safer, balancing the rights of gun owners with the needs of the rest of us. Sounds like a pretty reasonable list. You can also look at higher taxes for the bullets/ammo or guns, controlling the number of rounds one can buy every year, improving the nationalized database, some kind of test of proficiency/marksmanship (let's call it the equivalent of a written driver's license exam for those wanting a gun)... Beyond that, you really have to touch on the mental health side of it. A lot of these "mass killings" are planned out well in advance, with malice and forethought, but the pizza place shooting or the paintball shooting, it's about limiting access to guns, the ability to take one into a public place, keeping guns away from those people who are most likely to snap and solve disputes with a "shoot first, think later" perspective on conflict resolution.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 05:30 PM) And what a solution it has been! Clearly, there are no examples in the world of gun laws in other countries that has led to lower gun violence. We can only compare things to alcohol and drunk driving, which liberals wouldn't want to curb because they drink and are lazy. Meanwhile conservatives don't want to regulate law abiding citizens, except gays and women. Don't forget abortion! Well, I guess that's in the all-inclusive "women" category. You should include wanting to regulate the use of drugs too, not only drunk, but also high. Really, it should be the actions of poor people, gays and women, because all poor people are inherently lazy, on food stamps/WIC/welfare/medicaid, and they should just all pull themselves up by the bootstraps and get loans from their family. Oh, and heaven forbid any regulations for our banks, mortgage/securities companies, stock brokers, ratings agencies and Wall Street in general. We all saw how well that worked out. While we're at it, we can get rid of the EPA (because global warming hasn't been scientifically proven) and Dept. of Education, because all children should be home schooled before they're corrupted by lazy/greedy teachers who are actually richer than the robber barons on Wall Street and who all want to hand out condoms, get rid of Christmas and teach their children only about secularists like Obama, Bill Maher and Jon Stewart, lol.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 20, 2012 -> 01:52 AM) I've mentioned this earlier, You can do whatever you damn well please with a car on your own property. Dont even need to have a license, if you own enough land you can get absolutely drunk off your tits and drive your car around like a banshee. You can even build something that gets 10 gallons to the mile and farts out the emissions of a 747. Its your machine, its your property and you can do whatever you want with it on your property. Public roads are where you have to start playing by rules. Why cant we say the same about guns? Let's say I own an M249 (SAW LMG, you've seen them in movies). What's wrong with me owning it if I keep it on my property? Why do you f***ing care? You say "Oh, well this and that type weapon should be BANNED" because it has scary names like assault weapon (not even a real thing really) and semi-automatic. And then everything else should be kept track of by the government, even if we never take them out in public. So why the difference? What changes? I'm guessing its just because today we have no respect for property rights. I mean, the government never really has (and never really will), but when people themselves start calling for it you know were in trouble. Except you're forgetting the key point in this particular Newtown case. If the mother would have responsibly stored her weapons, since they were in her name and not her son's, then this whole situation might have been avoided. In your example, the drunk driving is happening within your own property and not hurting anyone...there's no problem whatsoever with drinking yourself into a coma, it's when a drunken driver or rifles leave private property and are used on public/government land that the two lines of the Constitution intersect, between Federal and state/local/regional rights.

by LZ Granderson Grand Rapids, Michigan (CNN) -- I wish I were surprised that Texas Gov. Rick Perry doesn't see a problem with concealed weapons in schools, but after watching his failed bid for the presidency, the truth is there's very little that man can say that will truly surprise me. "If you have been duly back-grounded and trained and you are a concealed handgun license-carrying individual, you should be able to carry your handgun anywhere in this state," Perry said at a tea party event held on Monday. It seems his line of reasoning is in line with some of his gun-loving brethren who believe if teachers and principals are armed, tragedies like the one in Newtown would go away. It's as if he thinks "Rambo" is a documentary. In a country with fewer than 350 million people but more than 310 million guns, we don't need more of them. We need fewer. And when it comes to our schools, we don't need guns at all. So it's very fortunate that Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder had the good sense to veto Michigan Senate Bill 59 on Tuesday. The proposed law would have allowed people with permits to carry concealed weapons and with extra training, to bring their guns to traditional "gun-free" zones such as day care centers and schools. And by "extra training," the bill called for an additional eight hours and another 94 rounds on the firing range. That's it. It was approved the day before the shootings in Newtown. On Monday -- while Perry was encouraging guns in schools -- a letter signed by all 21 superintendents in my county was sent to Gov. Snyder asking him to veto the bill because, unlike the gun-happy politicians who rammed the legislation through in a lame duck session, educators do not believe guns in schools are a good thing. I have yet to hear a teacher who has survived a massacre advocate for guns in schools. In fact, the American Federation of Teachers -- with its 1.5 million members -- also sent a letter to Snyder opposing the bill, saying, "We should be doing everything we can to reduce the possibility of any gunfire in schools and concentrate on ways to keep all guns off school property." School allows teachers to carry guns In moments of stress, typically the first thing to erode is our motor skills. So the argument that educators should be ready to dodge gunfire, avoid hitting students and take out a gunman so someone hundreds of miles away can buy military-grade weapons and ammunition for kicks is a very stupid argument to make. And yet, we heard elements of that reasoning soon after the movie theater killings in Aurora, Colorado. Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert asked: "It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?" Yes, Gohmert -- because what a dark room filled with tear gas and panicked people needs is more guns. That makes as much sense as the lawmakers in Florida allowing concealed weapons in the state Capitol building in Tallahassee -- and then needing to install alert buttons on the phones of every senator and staffer in case someone came in and started shooting up the place with one of those concealed weapons. Gov. Snyder needed to veto SB 59, not because the mood of the country has shifted because of the Newtown tragedy, but because it was bad legislation to begin with. We don't need -- and most educators don't want -- guns in schools. I said most because David Thweatt, superintendent of the Harrold school district in Texas, where employees have been allowed to carry guns in schools since 2008, told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram: "Nothing is 100%. But what we do know is that we've done all we can to protect our children." Also, on "Meet the Press," former Secretary of Education William Bennett said, "I'm not so sure I wouldn't want one person in a school armed, ready for this kind of thing. ... It has to be someone who's trained, responsible. But, my God, if you can prevent this kind of thing, I think you ought to." Bennett: The case for gun rights is stronger than you think Let's think about this: In August, nine bystanders in New York were wounded as a result of police gunfire -- the police were trying to arrest a suspect connected with another shooting. In September, police in Houston shot and killed a double amputee in a wheelchair who was trying to stab an officer -- with a pen. Back in 2009, in Perry's state of Texas, a military doctor opened fire at the Fort Hood Army post, killing 13 and wounding 30 others. The victims were all professionals, surrounded by guns, and trained to handle -- in Bennett's words -- "this kind of thing." Why would anyone think teachers and principals could take a couple of weekend classes and do better than them? It just doesn't make sense. Having police patrol the area during school hours is fine. But allowing guns in school is simply counterintuitive to the kind of civilized society we want to live in and represent to the rest of the world. Did you know, in addition to schools and day care centers, SB 59 would've allowed guns in hospitals, stadiums and churches? I'm not anti-gun -- I have one in my house. But I ask you: What kind of people feel the need to have a gun with them in church? I'll tell you what kind: The kind who probably shouldn't have one in the first place.

Maybe the solution is simply to have states (or zones/areas within states allowing guns) with no handguns and other states where people can shoot each other at will (with SYG-like regulations or "non-regulations"). We're a democracy, let people have the right to choose. And probably if we did have state-by-state petitions, even now, 35-40 states would still choose to allow guns (even semi-automatic rifles), one would venture to guess.

But, typically, Northern Europe is always rated as one of the best or happiest places to live...Denmark, Norway, Finland and Sweden always come up on those "best" lists, despite the bitter cold. With the high suicide rate in Asian countries, it's not related as much to the guns (or lack thereof) as cultural factors. There are lots of only children in Japan/Korea/China/Singapore, so there's an inordinate amount of pressure and stress on them to succeed when they are teenagers and 20-somethings. All kids do here their senior year in China is study, study, study for their Gao Kao exams. Their whole life, for most Chinese students, is based on the results of this one exam. Because of the amount of pressure and stress, the fact that parents don't often have very open lines of communication with their children because they're far too busy providing them everything materially but their TIME and ATTENTION, the lack of any type of mental health infrastructure (for example, if you're a Thai teen, if you seek a counselor for depression/suicidal thoughts, it stays on your permanent record when you apply for jobs and makes you virtually unemployable), the stigma about mental problems in general....kids between 12-28 often just lose it. More often than not, it is females (who don't feel as loved as boys in China, although this is changing slowly)...and it's very very difficult for young people in Asia to talk about their private problems to even their peers, because they want to project an aura of success and contentment. They keep everything bottled up inside. I even read something where about 88% of high school and university girls don't even tell their best friend/s they've had sex for the first time for fear of being judged or gossiped about. When you live in a culture where so many things are officially repressed, it's bound to come out somehow, often with negative repercussions. Along with that, you have a low official divorce rate (there are a lot of sociological/cultural reasons I won't go into), but tons of unhappy marriages (and examples for children) where the men are having affairs but the family officially stays together for the sake of the grandparents and children. You can't just look at isolated countries with or without guns and then make comparisons without taking 100 other factors into consideration, just like the idea that violent video games and movies is the main predictor for gun violence is ridiculous and an easy excuse not to have a real discussion.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 01:21 PM) I'm razzing you. However, the fine people of Tennessee feel that teachers would be perfectly capable of using guns in their classroom. So I can razz back, lol. Why shouldn't they be using Davey Crockett styled weapons (the most important person in Tennessee state history, or Andrew Jackson) instead of more modern handguns or semi-automatics? Wouldn't that be what a strict constructionist to the Constitution would prefer, muskets and breech loaders?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 01:18 PM) More fear mongering. Okay, please give me some specific examples where schoolteachers have successfully shot and killed intruders in their homes with handguns (am not talking semi-automatic rifles here) without harming anyone else in the process...? So when the next school/public building shooting takes place due to copycat syndrome, then this whole fear-mongering label will be thrown out again, right? And yet how would you feel if it was your own son or daughter on that list of victims? Would you feel the "interpreted" right of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution was more important? Then why didn't the killer use a musket from the Revolutionary War or War of 1812? If guns (and the country/world/globalization, etc.) can change, so can the US Constitution.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 01:11 PM) Fantasy? I would've gotten the f*** out of there even if I was carrying. My chances would still be better running than getting a firefight. But if there was nowhere to run, yea I'd rather have a gun in that situation and so would you. Or the example recently in the Empire State Building where police officers hit 9 civilians (not directly involved) in a shoot-out due to ricochets. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/24...ice-rounds?lite So the police, trained to kill someone in that situation in their everyday duty, had 9 out of 14 shots hit non-combatants. And yet somehow teachers are going to do better? C'mon, I've been a teacher for over a decade and that's just impossible to believe. Teacher, school administrator, counselor, whatever.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 19, 2012 -> 12:31 PM) Why does the cartel buy guns from the Sons of Anarchy if they're so easily produced in Mexico!? Come on, think! It's Galen and the Irish, SOA Belfast Chapter. LOL. Don't think I can wait another half year or so for the next episode. Damn you, Clay and Jax.

For those bringing up the fact that Australia or England is not comparable to America because they are more "isolated," I give you another example, Israel. They are surrounded by historical enemies and at permanent war with terrorism, even moreso than the US. One of the unique provisions there is a lifetime limit of 50 bullets (edit, 50 rounds per year), from what I understand. http://www.jta.org/news/article/2012/07/24...n-violence-down In Israel, assault rifles are banned except for special circumstances, such as communal self-defense in areas deemed to be a security risk. And while political violence in Israel is all too common and gun violence is a growing problem, random shootings of strangers – like the Aurora massacre -- are virtually unheard-of here. Unlike in the United States, where the right to bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution’s Second Amendment, Israel’s department of public security considers gun ownership a privilege, not a right. Gun owners in Israel are limited to owning one pistol, and must undergo extensive mental and physical tests (such as target or sharpshooting) before they can receive a weapon, and gun owners are limited to 50 rounds of ammunition per year. Not all Israelis, however, may own guns. In order to own a pistol, an Israeli must for two years have been either a captain in the army or a former lieutenant colonel. Israelis with an equivalent rank in other security organizations may also own a pistol. In addition, residents of West Bank settlements, and those who work there, may own pistols for self-defense. Other groups of Israelis, such as professional hunters and sharpshooters, or people transporting dangerous goods, may also own firearms. And Israelis may keep unloaded guns they inherited or received as a gift. Lior Nedivi, a former police officer, said that despite Israel’s militarized society, neither soldiers nor veterans engage in extensive gun violence because 18-year-olds are tested for mental and physical fitness before being drafted. In 2008, 143 people in Israel died from firearms, according to the website gunpolicy.org. “They don’t recruit everyone,” said Nedivi, who runs a company called Advanced Forensic Science Services. “If you are a person with a record of violence, you will be discharged.” Nedivi favors allowing private gun ownership with tight regulations, noting that armed civilians have used their guns to stop terrorists during attacks. He said that gun massacres don’t occur in Israel because gun owners here undergo more comprehensive psychological screenings than do U.S. gun owners. “It’s not guns that kill, it’s people that kill,” Nedivi said. “If this person in Colorado will be screened now, they will say he has mental problems. In Israel, most people like this don’t get a chance to get a gun.” Gun violence does still occur in Israel, though gun control is not a sensitive political issue. “We think the society is over-armed,” said Smadar Ben-Natan, a lawyer who co-heads Gun-Free Kitchen Tables, an Israeli coalition to end domestic gun violence. “There are too many weapons going around. There is no justification that these weapons go home and are present in civilian surroundings.” Rather than lobbying for new laws, Gun-Free Kitchen Tables is pushing for the enforcement of current regulations, which require security guards to leave their weapons in their workplace. Ben-Natan said private security companies often do not abide by the law. “The private police companies offer an illusion of security,” Ben-Natan said. “They’re not accountable in terms of the public interest. They don’t bear the cost of the precautions that need to be in place. The people that pay this price are the women and family members who get shot.” For soldiers who take their weapons home on weekends and off-nights, the rule is they must be on their person at all times or under double-locks if left at home.

http://rt.com/usa/news/gun-control-manchin-assault-234/ Senator Manchin (WV), lifelong NRA member, says it's time to reopen gun control debate/discussion. Never mind. I just realized all these topics are probably in the other thread, although I haven't taken the time to read any of it. Please delete.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 04:42 PM) Because that's what the people of the family need, to see more violence. Share on facebookShare on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stumbleupon120 Topics: chris wallace ♦ fox news ♦ louie gohmert Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) on Sunday insisted that a tragic massacre at Sandy Forks Elementary School in Connecticut could have been prevented if Principal Dawn Hochsprung had been armed with an M4 carbine, an assault rifle designed by the U.S. military for urban warfare. During an interview on Sunday, Fox News host Chris Wallace asked Gohmert if he still believed that the country would be safer if more people were armed as he had said after a mass shooting at a theater in Aurora, Colorado earlier this year. “Every mass killing of more than three people in recent history has been in a place where guns were prohibited — except for one,” the Texas Republican explained. “They choose this place, they know no one will be armed.” Gohmert became emotional as he continued: “You know, having been and judge and having reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing that children have these defensive wounds — gunshots through their arms and hands as they try to protect themselves — and hearing the heroic stories the principal, lunging trying to protect — Chris, I wish to God she had had an M4 in her office locked up. So, when she heard gunfire she pulls it out and she didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands, but she takes him out, takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids.” Wallace noted that when the Second Amendment was written, weapons like the AR-15 Adam Lanza used to kill 20 children last week — which can shoot up to five rounds in a second — did not exist. “These were created for law enforcement, these were created for the military,” Wallace observed. “Why does the average person — I can understand a hunting rifle, I can understand and handgun — why do they need these weapons of mass destruction?” “Well, for the reason George Washington said: a free people should be an armed people,” Gohmert replied. “It insures against the tyranny of the government if they know that the biggest army is the American people then you don’t have the tyranny that came from King George.” “Once you start drawing the line, when do you stop?” he wondered. “You use your head and you look at the facts.” Watch this video from Fox News’ Fox News Sunday, broadcast Dec. 16, 2012. Raw Story (http://s.tt/1x5fc)