Jump to content


Kiyoat Husker

Members
  • Posts

    2,561
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Posts posted by Kiyoat Husker

  1. 3 hours ago, TGHusker said:

    Very true. When I think of Biblical conservatism - it is equated to stewardship.  Mankind is told in scriptures to be good stewards of this earth.  Thus sustainability relates to stewardship and passing this earth on the future generations in good shape.   This should not be a liberal or conservative construct. If corporations or govt pollute and destroy the earth and make it less sustainable, then we are allowing them to violating the biblical mandate.   So, this then gets down to policy and priorities.  What should this govt spending its limited funds on. Protecting the environment is an important 'human' responsibility and therefore an important role of govt.  Today's congressional 'conservatives' should be less concerned with the 'donor' class and more concern with stewardship and the long term affect of policy.

     

    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?

    • Plus1 1
  2. 33 minutes ago, funhusker said:

    I don't want to start a new thread, but figured this question would fit in here.

     

    The question was asked about "conceal carry" and if we'd like to see it expanded or not.  But I've always wondered how or if the impact of carrying a firearm is any different if it is concealed or openly carried in a holster. 

     

    My thought has always been to prefer to be around "open carry" because I knew who had guns and I could make a judgement call if it made me feel safe or not.  And if the argument goes "if the bad guys know there are guns there, they won't go there", then why don't we want the guns to be visible.  Wouldn't that make the actual act of carrying a gun more effective?

     

     

     

    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

     

    Quote

    Concealed weapons bans were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. (In those days open carry of weapons for self-defense was considered acceptable; concealed carry was denounced as the practice of criminals.) By 1859, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, and Ohio had followed suit.[5] By the end of the nineteenth century, similar laws were passed in places such as Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma, which protected some gun rights in their state constitutions.[6] Before the mid 1900s, most U.S. states had passed concealed carry laws rather than banning weapons completely

     

  3. 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

     

    Quote

    Our expert panel consisted of 32 current or retired academics in criminology, public health and law, who have published extensively in peer-reviewed academic journals on gun policy. 

     

    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

     

  4. ^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.

    • Plus1 1
  5. 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%)

  6.  

    16 hours ago, RedDenver said:

    The problem with this kind of poll is the loss of detail/nuance. 

     

    10 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

     I don't think it correct to lump Repubs and conservatives together, not anymore.

     

    2 hours ago, Stumpy1 said:

     can we quit talking about "assault rifles".   Assault rifles are already illegal to possess so that topic needs to be thrown out. 

     

    17 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

    Just for clarity, I would have preferred if you would have just said liberal vs. conservative instead of putting party affiliate in this.

     

    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!

    • Plus1 1
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 4 hours ago, NM11046 said:

    I should leave the polls to you Kiyoat!

     

    Admittedly this was driven by some recent experiences i've had with folks being very anti abortion and very pro capital punishment.  

     

    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.

    ;)

    • Plus1 1
  10. 22 hours ago, zoogs said:

    These are not that related and I think you'll find the polling to reflect that. I can see why people's views on this can be decoupled. Maybe there's something else you can add here: war. I suspect a lot of people who feel that the state shouldn't carry out executions of its citizens are pretty OK with its military carrying out the bombing of another nation's people.

    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.

    • Plus1 1
  11.  

    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...

    • Plus1 1
  12. 1 hour ago, GSG said:

    HOW WOULD THE COSTS OF A WOMEN'S HOCKEY TEAM COMPARE TO THE COSTS OF A WOMEN'S ROWING TEAM? (I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM A NUMBER-OF-ATHLETES VIEW: 18 VS 20)

     

    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....

    • Plus1 4
  13. 2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

    The recent law suits aren't challenging the legality or fairness of the electoral college itself, which is defined in the Constitution and has been upheld by the Supreme Court. The current effort is to change the way the states allocation the electors, which is defined by each state and NOT in the Constitution.

     

    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)

  14. 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.

    • Plus1 1
  15. 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)

    • Plus1 4
    • Fire 1
  16. 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.

    • Plus1 1
  17. 10 minutes ago, commando said:

    trump jumped on the idea of armed guards in the schools.   that's what the NRA wants.   i would bet we are getting armed guards in our schools.   i wonder how those will be paid for?  maybe the NRA could fund them?

     

    7 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

    I wonder how long it would be before the number of accidental shooting deaths by armed guards tops the kind of attacks they're meant to stop.

     

    .... 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.

    • Plus1 2
  18. 27 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

    Let me ask you this.  I fully support making changes to our gun laws to help prevent mass shootings.   I keep seeing people say we need to ban all semi-automatic guns.  Are we talking about certain kinds of semi-automatics or all semi-automatics?  I think there needs to be some education on exactly what that all means.  Let me give two examples.

     

    1)  I have used semi-automatic shot guns for bird hunting.  They are very good for this use and, for the most part, aren't any different than a pump shotgun as far as ability for someone to take it and kill masses of people.

     

    2)  I have never owned a hand gun simply because I have never had a need.  However, a hobby I have wanted to get into when I finally become and empty nester (May 2018 :)) is to to more hiking and camping in the mountains.  This is bear and mountain lion country.  I know people who do this and have been talking to them for a long time.  One thing is, you take a hand gun for safety.  You don't want to be staring down a mountain lion and not be able to protect yourself.


    Both of these examples use semi-automatic weapons for completely reasonable and non-threatening reasons.


    How can we balance this.

     

    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/

    Quote

     

    Category A is .22s, shotguns and air rifles. That’s the easiest license to obtain. No semiautomatics are allowed.

     

    Category B is for center fire rifles. You have to provide a reason for why you need a more powerful gun. I shoot feral pigs and foxes; that’s a valid reason. Again, no semiautomatics.

     

    Category C is available only to farmers; they can own a semiautomatic shotgun or .22 but the cartridges are limited to five shots for the shotgun and 10 shots for the .22.

     

    Category D, for semiautomatic guns and rifles, is only for professional shooters: you have to have a registered business and prove that you are earning an income through shooting.

     

    An H license is for handguns. If you want to buy a pistol in Australia you’ve got to be a member of a target pistol club. You’ve got to do a minimum of eight competition shoots per year to keep your license. If you don’t, you lose it.

     

    Category G is for collectors. For that you’ve got to attend at least one meeting per year.

     

    I have licenses for Categories A, B, H and G.

     

     

    Quote

    If you were to ask the average Australian who isn’t a shooter, they would say that most people shouldn’t have access to any firearms. But the reality is that gun-lovers like me belong to a club and are doing no harm. I go clay pigeon shooting on a Saturday. I go pistol shooting on Sunday morning. That’s my hobby. And then every month or every eight weeks I go and visit my friend’s farm and hunt his feral pigs. He loses about 1,500 to 2,000 lambs a year to feral pigs. So we deal with them.

     

    • Plus1 1
×
×
  • Create New...