HuskerNation1

Yes i was there too and asking illini fans if that wad common as its illegal from what I understand of the rules. It resulted in at least one false start. There werent enough Illinois fans there to make noise so they blasted sound during our snap counts when the game clock was winding down.

While I appreciate the concern about the AD and chancellor, the intent of this thread was focused on changes in olayer personnel for the rest of this season. Since this season is already a waste, it feels like we need to plan for next season, which I usually say about my Cubbies.

I think now that Riley knows the honeymoon is over and the heat is on him, he can no longer dilly dally with Newby or others that maybe appeared to be the natural starters coming off of last season or spring ball.

Given our odds of winning the Big Ten West are pretty much shot, and we are installing a new system on offense and defense, will that change who the coaches play the rest of the season? Devine looked great today, and I see no reason to give him (as a true freshman) and other young guys to get the starting roles for their positions. This includes the secondary, O-line, and other areas of concern. It's time for this staff to sit those who are not committed or giving it their all, and look to the future, even if the future seems bleak after today's loss.

Well their conclusions were pretty darn clear, so if you are not refuting them, then that helps support the argument they and other studies have found that gun control is counterproductive and the wrong area of focus if we want to address the root cause behind why criminals are committing these acts. Here are some other data points since some in this thread are into sharing nice charts and graphs. Please note the final one that shows that crime in Australia has increased since their gun ban. http://www.dailyrecord.com/story/opinion/letters/2014/07/16/gun-safety/12678271/ http://www.thedailygouge.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/47358233553276616_kZ1rXdNs_b.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IxqaFui1lRw/UOBwgLXJiVI/AAAAAAABEEY/C8NQf-sK174/s1600/121230-guns-010.jpg http://i0.wp.com/www.armedwithreason.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/539264_10151555914761833_416157604_n1.jpg?fit=1024%2C1024 https://atruthsoldier.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/australia-since-gun-ban.jpg

Certainly not hours after the tragedy when some family members still didn't know if there loved one was killed. Here is what the President should have said: "Today we are here to mourn the loss of more young lives lost to a madman, and our prayers and condolences go out to those families and loved ones affected. There is too much gun violence in this nation, and I call on members of both parties to come together and partner with me to analyze why this continues to happen, but that is not a discussion for today. Today we must support the families and the community college during this difficult time. Thank you very much." That's fine. I'll agree with that. But let's also stop the other post-shooting bullsh#t where politicians say "The victims and families are in our prayers." but do absolutely nothing but line their pockets with donations from the gun lobby. More gun control may or may not work (seems to be working pretty well in Australia though, right?). But saying prayers for victims regularly absolutely is not working. Not sure why I'm even bothering taking part in this. Nothing was done after Sandy Hook, so clearly too many people have decided that it's not worth even trying to prevent children from dying needlessly again. It's hard, and it won't be 100% effective, so let's not even make an effort. As Jeb Bush says, "Stuff happens." You can always say prayers after stuff happens, amirite? First off, I don't agree with Jeb's comments whatsoever. But to your point, this is no proof that increased gun control helps, and as the study I referenced earlier, it actually has resulted in more gun crime. Both sides of this argument simply focus on guns and the weapon used, when a mass killing such as this is a much larger issue than the weapon of choice. I would like to hear Obama and other gun-control advocates acknowledge that simply putting in legislation to restrict guns does NOT solve the problem.

I was one of many Husker fans at today's game, and we cheered our butts off trying to encourage this team. While I didn't approve of the online post Lewis made a couple weeks back, if he's verbally making this statement while walking off the field after a tough loss, I have no problem with it. I feel the coaches own an apology to the many fans in Husker nation.

Haha...just the anger coming out in me. For all of Beck's flaws, NU still was scoring a lot of points the past few seasons. He was not good at developing QBs, but understood the strength of Armstrong and our team is running the ball. Urb agrees. But he's not nice. Haha, i don't think anyone had too many issues with Beck's persona. I'm sure Bo's negativity rubbed off on him a bit, but in the grand scheme of things, he was probably the best of all the coaches we had last season.

Yes, and NU and Wisconsin going the other way. That's the nature of coaching changes. If we didn't change, we'd still be stuck in neutral or slowly idling backwards, so I commend the decision to make a change, but after 5 games this season, I don't commend the choice that was made. This time I hope we don't wait 7 years to make another change.

We could be Texas right now. Just kidding...I'm really needing something to hang my hat on after this one.

Haha...just the anger coming out in me. For all of Beck's flaws, NU still was scoring a lot of points the past few seasons. He was not good at developing QBs, but understood the strength of Armstrong and our team is running the ball.

This was totally on the coaches, mostly the offensive coaches. The D had a few blown plays, and I expect that from time to time with the lack of talent and the new scheme, but we gave up 14 points to Illinois and lost. Even if they made both field goals and had 20 points, we should still not be losing. The inability of our offense to get first downs and score touchdowns is not something we've seen since the 2009 team when Watson was the OC.

I just got home from the game and have now seen Illinois lose 2 games on the last play (BYU and today's game). Big Red was sure representing in Champaign, but it's unfortunate our OC was not. I have not seen that pathetic of an offensive performance by a Nebraska team in a long time. The defense gave up 20 points (if you count the 2 missed field goals), and given our defensive personnel, and despite a couple of blown assignments, this game was not on the D. We were running the ball well...why in the world did we keep trying to throw the ball downfield. Run the freaking ball...run the freaking ball. I honestly thought that Langsdorf would be a good play caller, but after these past few games, that has totally changed. The conditions in the stadium were terrible, the wind was swirling, and there was no reason to continue throwing the ball as much as we did. We have speed at the wideouts, some good RBs, and a great running QB. Run the jet sweep, the QB option, and halfback toss over and over until the opponent proves it can beat you. Pelini was not a great head coach, and needed to be let go, but if Riley hangs on to these coordinators that are terrible, either they need to go or he needs to go. Beck, for some of his poor games, was probably one of the best OC's NU has had in a long time, and I know that's a hard thing to accept.

1. Correct. Fact checking for a Law Journal is to be sure that the citation exists - not whether it is correct. To do otherwise would require the law journal to act as a peer review committee, for which no law journal has the resources. 2. Where did I claim that disagreed with the "study" or the data? I simply corrected your claim that it was a Harvard study. I provided background on the authors to demonstrate that, first, they were not associated with Harvard, and second, that the conclusions are certainly subject to a degree of disbelief given the biases of the authors. You implied that the article I referenced was not valid because you felt the authors were biased. I'm glad you are not refuting their conclusions based upon facts or findings but simply your own gut feel.

Exactly, and that's what the gun rights proponents refuse to acknowledge. The past 25 to 30 years is when we've seen an increase in these mass shootings, and access to guns has not gotten easier during that time. What has changed during that time. 1. Violence depicted in movies, television, music, and video games has become more prevalent. You can't turn on CBS or ABC in the evening without seeing shows like CSI and Criminal Minds that involve many gun scenes. Perhaps we should ban all entertainment showing such violence. 2. Increase divorce rate and split family households. The breakdown in the American family, along with both parents working, have resulted in many kids being left alone to play more violent video games, get involved with bad crowds, etc... 3. Removal of religion/faith from schools and in peoples lives. We are a much more secular nation now than ever in our history, and I don't think its a coincidence that this type of violence has increased. 4. Income inequality has risen, and has gotten much worse under President Obama. The numbers there do not lie. More Americans are dependent on government and are not working, and we have the highest number of Americans out of the labor force since 1977. It would be interesting to see what the empirical research shows on the correlation between income inequality and violence in general (including assault and rape)

bnilhome, what you link to is not a study by Harvard. Instead, it's an article that was published in the Harvard Law Journal. Every law school has a Law Journal. The articles are simply submissions by lawyers and law students (and in some instances, non-lawyers, based on subject matter). Law Journal councils, which are comprised of professors and students of the law school, examine the submissions on a number of factors, including the level of citation and the scholarship (where "scholarship" can range from clarity of writing to citations to authority) in determining whether to publish. Law Journals typically publish both "liberal" and "conservative" articles; law journals do not attempt to determine whether the article is "correct". In the article to which you linked, the authors are, to quote from the article itself: The Pacific Research Institute, with which Mr. Kates is associated, is a San Francisco-based right-wing think tank. Gary Mauser is a Canadian university professor whose publications are on political marketing and limiting or eliminating gun control. His interest in firearms and “gun control” grew out of his research in political marketing. He has published two books, ("Political Marketing" and "Manipulating Public Opinion") and more than 20 articles along the same lines - in short, his interest is manipulating media to foster the idea that guns are harmless and there should be no controls. In short, the article is pushing an agenda and in no way meets the definition of a "study". Various right-wing entities have characterized it as a "Harvard study", which it is not. Harvard did not conduct the "study". No Harvard faculty or staff participated in the article. It was simply published by the Harvard Law Journal. It has not been subjected to peer review. It's little more than an opinion piece. So you are telling me that Harvard Law publishes articles under its names from authors that are using faulty data sources or empirical analysis? Please point out what part of the study and data you disagree with. I pointed out what was missing with Knapplc's graphs which, by the way, came from leftist VOX and includes citations from Mother Jones, another leftist outfit.

Again, these data points put forward by Vox and Mother Jones are excluding key points as to whether the guns involved were obtained legally or not, and what percent of this violence was caused by gangs. The US has a major gang problem, and that accounts for many homicides by guns. Moreover, you continue to refuse to point out what you disagree with in the Harvard study I've provided on multiple occasions that examined the US and many other countries that Obama referenced yesterday. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐ national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the man‐ tra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per cap‐ ita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or sui‐ cide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates

Umm, that's a short article in 2013 that does not show its methodology or empirical analysis, and leaves out TWO Key items. 1. What percent of the guns referenced in these data points were used ILLEGALLY. This is an important point. Just as laws banning draws does not mean addicts seeking drugs will not find a way to illegally acquire them, the same can be said for guns. 2. What percent of deaths referenced are a result of gang on gang violence. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, as well as some of the highest gun killings in the US.

You mean the extreme leftist, indoctrination education system that is prevalent in the US and other Western countries? Yes, guilty as charged. Thankfully, I've been able to sift through the nonsense and come to my own conclusions i.e. not submit to the narrative or what the ruling "elite" tells me to do or how to think. And while you've sat stewing in that ignorance, thousands of Americans have been gunned down. Kudos on your enlightenment. Maybe someday you can spread your wisdom to those other "elitest" countries where citizens aren't killed in the thousands by guns, and they can also bask in the radiance of their slain children. Did you read the research article I just posted that comes from the lefts favorite elitist institute...Harvard. The study shows that those countries with higher gun control laws have MORE gun crime. This was an empirical-based research study recently published. Seriously, stop ignoring the facts. Page 661 of this Harvard study states this, which directly refutes your own personal research based upon I'm not sure what. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf Startling as the foregoing may seem, it represents the cross‐ national norm, not some bizarre departure from it. If the man‐ tra “more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death” were true, broad based cross‐national comparisons should show that nations with higher gun ownership per cap‐ ita consistently have more death. Nations with higher gun ownership rates, however, do not have higher murder or sui‐ cide rates than those with lower gun ownership. Indeed many high gun ownership nations have much lower murder rates.

You mean the extreme leftist, indoctrination education system that is prevalent in the US and other Western countries? Yes, guilty as charged. Thankfully, I've been able to sift through the nonsense and come to my own conclusions i.e. not submit to the narrative or what the ruling "elite" tells me to do or how to think. And while you've sat stewing in that ignorance, thousands of Americans have been gunned down. Kudos on your enlightenment. Maybe someday you can spread your wisdom to those other "elitest" countries where citizens aren't killed in the thousands by guns, and they can also bask in the radiance of their slain children. Did you read the research article I just posted that comes from the lefts favorite elitist institute...Harvard. The study shows that those countries with higher gun control laws have MORE gun crime. This was an empirical-based research study recently published.

And for very good reason. You have all of these people justifying that firearms should remain legal because if an individual wants to go out and harm people or themselves that they will find a way. Complete and utter bullsh#t. How often do you hear about mass attacks involving anything other than a gun? Make firearm sales illegal already. There just isn't a reason for anyone to own a gun that isn't a hunting rifle or something. Umm, how about this recent research study conducted by the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy which found that there is an Inverse (negative) relationship between gun ownership and violent crime, and nations with the highest gun control laws have substantially higher murder rates. You would think that Obama would have contacted his alma mater regarding this recent publication before going on his rant yesterday. http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf http://www.commercialappeal.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/Letter-Safer-with-guns-328350991.html

Certainly not hours after the tragedy when some family members still didn't know if there loved one was killed. Here is what the President should have said: "Today we are here to mourn the loss of more young lives lost to a madman, and our prayers and condolences go out to those families and loved ones affected. There is too much gun violence in this nation, and I call on members of both parties to come together and partner with me to analyze why this continues to happen, but that is not a discussion for today. Today we must support the families and the community college during this difficult time. Thank you very much."

If Americans really wanted to make a difference and send a message, they should boycott any Hollywood producers that make movies involving any sort of gun violence, as well as the mainstream networks like CBS and others for having so many television shows depicting gun violence (like Criminal Minds, CSI, etc...) as well as X Box 360, Playstation, and video game makers for depicting violence. The gun is just the weapon of choice, but the criminal has to get the idea to commit the act from somewhere, and those ideas come from common entertainment mediums. Here is a link to the top 30 Hollywood producers. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/list/30-powerful-film-producers-hollywood-788505 Do you think that people absorb a large amount of violent media may be more naturally aggressive people, and that watching violent media doesn't really have an effect? The US has passed more gun control laws in the past 50 years or so (since 1968) than any other part of our country's history. Even in the 1970s and 1980s we didn't see as many of htese tragedies as we've seen in the past 20 years. Our culture has changed greatly. I agree with one of the posters that talked about the breakdown of the family as one of the keys...that is a major issue. Also, the growing secular nature of our society, and the embracing of sex and violence in movies and television. Someone that chooses to do such an act has something that is putting that vision in his or her mind. I don't think humans are born to think, hey, why don't i go and shoot up a bunch of people today. I'm Conservative and am fine with laws that are doing background checks, etc..but that is not the major problem. It's understanding why individuals are killing others, whether its by gun, knife, a bomb, etc.. This country will not get anywhere with a President that comes out, within hours of such a tragedy, including when some family members still had not known if their loved one was killed, and uses the tragedy to make a political argument. His words and actions further emboldened those on both sides of the debate, making common ground more difficult to reach. He is a natural divider which is frustrating as this country is in trouble and needs a unifying presence.

If Americans really wanted to make a difference and send a message, they should boycott any Hollywood producers that make movies involving any sort of gun violence, as well as the mainstream networks like CBS and others for having so many television shows depicting gun violence (like Criminal Minds, CSI, etc...) as well as X Box 360, Playstation, and video game makers for depicting violence. The gun is just the weapon of choice, but the criminal has to get the idea to commit the act from somewhere, and those ideas come from common entertainment mediums. Here is a link to the top 30 Hollywood producers. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/list/30-powerful-film-producers-hollywood-788505

Exactly Decked. Gun control advocated seem to think that criminals will stop being criminals if laws are put into place. A criminal is not going to stop harming others, just as a drug addict it not going to stop smoking it up because laws say many drugs are illegal.