Kiyoat Husker

Florida just passed some gun control legislation, and now the NRA is going to sue. Someone find a news link, I have trouble doing that from my phone...

It's funny that the current head of the EPA cites the bible as his inspiration for a completely opposite view of this topic. Ironic, right?

I don't know. Maybe letting Trump and his crack team go to North Korea could turn out fine. Just like it turned out for Hans Blix. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIPSvIz9NDs

I don't know if I can give you a complete answer, but I think that what you are describing (being more comfortable with open carry) is actually more in keeping with the history of the law. When the concept of "concealed carry" was first conceived, it was when they were banning it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/05/upshot/how-to-reduce-mass-shooting-deaths-experts-say-these-gun-laws-could-help.html A NYT article from last October that combined a public survey with expert opinions on which laws would be the most effective at reducing mass shootings Some of the laws that proved to be both popular and potentially very effective: Universal background checks for gun buyers & ammo buyers Bar sales to all violent criminals Bar sales to mentally ill Assault weapons ban Some that were popular but not likely to be very effective: Honor Out-of-state Conceal-carry Gov buyback of banned guns Stronger sentences for illegal guns Require gun safes Fingerprint gun owners Not popular, but potentially effective: Demonstrate the need for a gun

^pretty comparable numbers, especially given the small sample size. I would guess that America as a whole is slightly more open to gun control, and slightly less open to loosening gun restrictions. The Conservatives on this Board show the highest degree of difference from the national poll last June. Whether that is the more selective sample size, or Nebraska vs. National, or an actual paradigm shift, who knows? The Assault-style weapons ban had very low support within this group compared with the Pew poll.

Here's the results, with 30 respondants, compared with the Pew Research Poll results (Jun 2017) Legislation----------Dems/Libs (vs. Pew)---Reps/Cons (vs. Pew) Mentally Ill----------87% (89%)-------------------100%(89%) No-Fly list-----------87%(85%)----------------------60%(82%) Bckgrnd Checks-93%(90%)----------------------87%(77%) Assault Ban--------93%(80%)----------------------20%(54%) Ntnl Database----93%(84%)----------------------40%(56%) Hi-cap Magazn--87%(79%)-----------------------40%(47%) CCP more plcs--13%(26%)------------------------40%(72%) Guns in K-12-------7%(26%)------------------------- 7%(69%) shorter wait--------7%(25%)--------------------------0%(51%) CC no Permit------7%(10%)--------------------------7%(30%)

She already signed a top-20 class with a bad season. I think this will lead to some GREAT recruiting!

These are fair points, but I was trying to follow the Pew Research poll as closely as I could, to allow a fair comparison between them. That includes using the exact same language and terminology. And for the record, the poll uses the term "assault-style" rifles, not assault rifles. With any opinion poll there is going to be some generalization and less specific details. Otherwise it is too complex to try and see trends. Especially with a small sample size. Hell, even trying to separate D/R or Con/Lib is problematic with less than 50 voters!

I'm happy to see some balance in the poll now, with (i think) 11 D / 8 R voting! (not everyone checked the tally box) I think there are still a good number of people that might still vote, so I'll hold off on analysis, but once again, I am somewhat surprised at the results. In general there appears to be more galvanization of people towards some kind of gun control, on both the left and right. I think there is just disagreement on what would be the most effective. I'm guessing if I did the exact same poll two weeks ago there might be some slightly different answers, but maybe not.

If you are Independent/ Centrist, and TRULY do not at least lean one way or another, .... I guess you could vote in both sections? For the record, If you feel that you fall in this category I believe you are giving yourself WAY too much credit for being non-partisan. Like, Jesus-level.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/bipartisan-support-for-some-gun-proposals-stark-partisan-divisions-on-many-others/ This poll mirrors one that was released by the Pew Research Center this past June, after the Congressional baseball shooting. Keep in mind that these are "generalized" proposals. Not specific. For example, the definition of "Mentally Ill" would need a lot of specificity. How one chooses to define that would make all the difference for many people, pro or against. I just wanted to see if our board's response in this current climate would differ from the national one 8 months ago.... Also trying a strategy to parse out Dem/Rep, like the Pew poll did. I had to be a little creative, since every question has to have an answer.

And Virginia, New York, and Birmingham.......

Ha! Poll away, dear. I like any and all opinion polls because they involve not just those that post frequently, but many that mostly just read, or post less. I think it gives a good snapshot of the board community, even if we are a small subset of Husker Nation. I am often surprised at the outcome of polls. I go in expecting one thing, and BOOM! ... something else. Pretty dark topic, though. I guess it's a breather from gun violence.

Yeah, I agree. A more interesting thing to compare might be abortion legality vs. the funding of Planned Parenthood, which provides so many vital services to women and families with regard to PREVENTING unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

I could see this as a hugely positive thing, if it could ever pick up steam. I mean, it's been 25 YEARS without the CDC being "allowed" to look into gun violence...

... A Nothingburger the likes of which nobody has ever seen...

Field Hockey might not be revenue-generating, but..... If any of them looked like Ellen Hoog.... (google it yourself, I'm at work)

Found a Report from 2011 that looked at Michigan State's revenue and costs by sport: http://businessofcollegesports.com/2011/07/19/which-sports-turn-a-profit/ So for MSU in 2011, only the Football team turned a profit. Three other teams at least provided revenue, even if they operated in the red: Men's Hockey, Men's Basketball, and Women's Basketball. All the other teams provided Zero revenue, because they didn't charge admission, (including baseball, softball and volleyball) _CREW (rowing) was one of the highest-cost women's sports, at 1.1 million. - Compare that with Men's Hockey: Revenue: 1.2 million, cost: 1.8 Million, net -0.6 mil. - I'm sure Women's Hockey would draw less than Men's, but would at least provide SOME revenue vs. Zero for rowing. * I'm guessing that if Women's Hockey was the only D-1 Hockey in Lincoln, it might actually draw very well. We support Women's Basketball and Volleyball better than most Big Ten Schools. The Bank can be converted to Hockey for games, and they already have a practice facility....

True, but it would still have far-reaching consequences. If more states went to a similar system to Nebraska or Maine, it would be that much closer to approximating the will of the people. (depends on which states)

The weird thing is that the electoral college was originally seen as a compromise between direct election and just having congress (indirectly) elect the president. At this point, I think the congressional method would be better, because it wouldn't be a "winner take all" for each state. OTOH, direct election makes the most sense. I think direct election was just more difficult in colonial times.

Well, cutting a men's sport would be the less desirable option, but It could happen. Here is a list of B1G-sponsored women's sports that Nebraska does NOT participate in yet: - Field Hockey (12-scholarship limit) - Lacrosse (12) - Rowing (20) Nebraska has three non-B1G-sponsored Varsity Women's sports: - Bowling (5) - Rifle (3.6) - Beach Volleyball (6) And here are some other non-sponsored possibilities: -Fencing (5) -Hockey (18) -Water Polo (8) Additionally there are some sports that the NCAA has designated as "emerging sports" for women, and are actively trying to grow, including some incentives and grants: -Equestrian (15) -Rugby (12) -Triathlon (6.5) -Archery (formerly an "emerging sport", no longer regulated by NCAA, but can still count towards varsity athletes)

I know this is preaching to the choir, but the thing that irritates me the most about this barrage of tweets (he does this a lot) is talking about complex problems in a simplistic way, as if they should be easy. The solutions are all obvious, duh. "problem solved" "sicko would NEVER attack the school" "...would solve the problem INSTANTLY" Speaking in absolutes like that typically means you don't really understand the issue, and don't care to. Also, for someone that likes to point out how this is just a mental illness problem, not a gun problem, using the term "savage sicko" does nothing to advance that narrative, or find mental health-related solutions.

.... and there already WAS an armed guard at the Parkland school. It's such a big school, the shooter and the guard never came in contact..... pretty effective.

I know you weren't asking me, but I was just reading an article you might find interesting. It's from Time Magazine from a year ago, and It is an interview with an avid hunter, sport target shooter and gun collector from Australia. He gives an interesting perspective. In Australia you can still own guns, even semi-automatic guns, but you have to prove that you have a legitimate use for them. http://time.com/4172274/what-its-like-to-own-guns-in-a-country-with-strict-gun-control/