NebraskaHarry

Yes, true, true... but we also have arguably the best WR group in the B1G. To me it really depends on the opponent. You have to take what they give you. If that means throwing or running more so be it. I think our offense is capable of doing both well.

I don't know about excellent. I mean the video does have more dislikes than likes after all. Also.. if someone was going to come into the work place with a gun, I hope it's with a rifle instead of a pistol. It's much harder to conceal a rifle than a pistol and at least I would have a better chance seeing it coming. Kind of like the video. I mean this guy walked through the doors, past a dozen people, plainly carrying a rifle. They saw it coming and no one did a thing. Plus they're in close quarters. It's harder to move a rifle around than a pistol in close quarters. Be bumping it into cubicles and such ... Oh and another thing. The guy carrying that rifle had to get that rifle from his car to that building. Another wasted opportunity for someone outside to see it, or someone in the building looking out a window to see it, or heck how bout a cop. Yeah I'll take my chances with a rifle if I'm in a building thank you very much.

Your whole argument seems to be premised on the number of rounds a magazine can hold. To me there really is no dramatic difference between a 20 round mag, a 10 round mag, or a 5 round mag. Anyone who knows how to use an "assault" weapon or any gun for that matter can probably change a magazine in 2 seconds. An insignificant amount of time really given the intention of the possibly situation.. Plus with tactical gear vests it makes it easier than ever... The problem with your argument is you want to save some lives by trying to find solutions for potential gun related situations with non-scientific theory and/or self opinion. For me, I want to find solutions so these types of events never even start. I want to find solutions so that these issues should not need to be discussed in government and on message boards. Read some of my other posts. My argument isn't scientific because it can't ever be scientific. How can we test the effects of reduced magazine size on the number of lives lost without actually having some raw data? How can we get that raw data? The only way we can do that is to run the same person through the same course in the same amount of time and measure how many people (critically hit dummies) the person hit. Then run an ANOVA to see if that difference was significant. That's how the argument becomes scientific. The problem with that test is the fact that there are an incredible amount of confounds that really invalidate the findings. Not everybody operates a gun with the same amount of efficiency or accuracy (and even then a single person's efficiency changes on a daily (even hourly, basis), not every building is going to be laid out like the course, the reaction time of the targets (real people) are not the same. All of those can critically affect the effect of reduced magazines on the number of lives lost. So my argument can never be scientific. But why can't it be researched? Answer that question and you'll find the real culprit. It has just three letters. N. R. A. You're essentially saying "..'This' many people shouldn't die in this type of event, because if we did this only 'this' many people would die." You don't even realize it, but by your logic you're admitting that we wouldn't even solve the actual real problem.

Your whole argument seems to be premised on the number of rounds a magazine can hold. To me there really is no dramatic difference between a 20 round mag, a 10 round mag, or a 5 round mag. Anyone who knows how to use an "assault" weapon or any gun for that matter can probably change a magazine in 2 seconds. An insignificant amount of time really given the intention of the possibly situation.. Plus with tactical gear vests it makes it easier than ever... The problem with your argument is you want to save some lives by trying to find solutions for potential gun related situations with non-scientific theory and/or self opinion. For me, I want to find solutions so these types of events never even start.

5 ten round mags vs 10 five round mags... I'm all for background checks. Tough one's in fact. But this idea that reducing the number of rounds in a magazine is going to make a difference is dumb. What those people really want are 0 round mags. We get the hint. what people? and what is the purpose of larger magazines? Those calling for a reduction in the number of rounds in a mag. Before I can answer your second question I think you need to first ask what the purpose of a gun is.

5 ten round mags vs 10 five round mags... I'm all for background checks. Tough one's in fact. But this idea that reducing the number of rounds in a magazine is going to make a difference is dumb. What those people really want are 0 round mags. We get the hint.

Bring in the firetrucks and flush him out with 10 water hoses I say.

moving arms.

"Flailing"? Like a fish in a boat?

Is that the asian guy from the Hangover?

Sounds like he's alive.

We have the money to fork over for new turf. Lets get this done.

i am not saying it is ideal, but i do not think it is worth sacrificing better policies that focus on job creation. i had a friend that was looking at an apartment. it was a little expensive, but they had a deal where the first month was free. he argued that was like $50 off a month. the math may have been accurate, but that is not how budgeting works. he may have had extra money, but it would have no effect on his spending. he would have had to pay himself that first rent payment and take away from it monthly. but that is not how budgeting works. even with putting the money away and withdrawing a little monthly his spending would be the same, even though he is saving a percent of his rent. and that is my point. he would have no demonstrable effects on his budget. just like saying the gov't's spending would be different if it did not have to pay interest. spending would largely still be the same and so would the arguments. if the politicians really cared, they would cut spending where it would be the easiest: the military. but they refuse to, so that tells you how much they care about budgeting. it is just posturing and the deficit/debt is the perfect issue to highlight when trying to justify their agenda, which is to neuter gov't. edit: i am really not arguing. i agree it would be great not to have a deficit and to have a balanced budget. but it is not the issue some want to think it is. So what's the issue?

so? Go look at BigRedBuster's posts above. Nuff said. Unless you just can't grasp that concept... Frankly, if your just picking sides to pick sides.. well.. you're picking the wrong side on this debate.

no one is saying it is not a lot of money. i just want to know how it has affected our economy and our daily lives. Your mom must do all your grocery shopping.

interest of the federal debt. Money that's definitely not staying in this country.

Devaluing the dollar = We pay more for other things.

show, do not tell. ...what? how is that hurting anything? honest question. Are you saying that we could have an unlimited amount in debt and that would not hurt anything?

UCLA is going to be a tough game this year for sure. At this point it could go either way again.

show, do not tell. ...what?

16 + Trillion dollars of debt doesn't matter? Government borrowing 40 cents for every dollar it spends doesn't matter? Well, I was worried for nothing.

Really? That's why you teared up?