NM11046

 

 

 

Could you turn that ball like half an inch to the left before zoogs knocks it into the middle of next week? I don't think you teed it up 100% perfectly.

 

I can't hardly hold in my excitement to hear how it's moral to murder unborn babies.

When do you consider them "unborn babies?" Conception or a certain amount of weeks?

 

 

Fixed this for you.

 

At the time of conception, it is a baby in my opinion. In other words, once the sperm fertilizes the egg.

 

Word is he's looking to visit for three games this year - Fresno State, Oregon and Minnesota. Also looking to visit Florida three times.

 

That's keeping a pretty busy schedule.

Kid should just get an apartment here now ...

That paragraph is full of easily correctable inaccuracies, particularly about the dangers of the procedure and the characterization of these clinics as "back alley behind the tattoo parlour or someplace similarly." I'll leave it as an exercise in Googling.

 

Kudos on your imagination, though. It's very ... imaginative.

THANK YOU ZOOGS.

 

 

there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

 

 

So you're saying that less guns and changing the culture would be successful deterrents towards the rates of gun violence?

 

 

I think he's saying that lots of nice beaches and palm trees are useful deterrents to committing crimes (I would think).

 

Nope. :-)

Florida: 24.5% gun ownership ... 3.4 gun murders per 100,000.

The difference is gun laws.

Florida:

• Only Requires a three-day waiting period prior to purchase of a handgun;
• Prohibits the transfer or possession of certain types of ammunition

Florida does not, however:

• Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm
• Require firearms dealers to obtain a state license;
• License firearm owners;
• Require the registration of guns
• Regulate assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles or large capacity ammo magazines
• Limit the number of guns that may be purchased at one time; or
• Regulate "Saturday Night Specials" or other junk guns

 

​For sure, gun ownership is less prevalent in Hawaii 6.7% vs. Illinois 20.2%. Murders by gun are also less in HI (.5% vs 2.8% in IL). Is this because of their "cultural heritage" or the laws?

If you think longevity of stateship or cultural background from hundreds of years ago is a factor, then one would think that Massachusetts, NY, RI would all be high, because they've been states the longest and were created by folks who were gun toting advocates during the Revolution right? Respective ownership numbers are: 12.6%, 18%, 12.8% and murders per 100,000 are low, 1.8% (MA), 2.7% (NY), 1.5% (RI).

Instead your leaders in gun deaths are the the states (ironically) with the high gun ownership: LA-44% MO-41%, MD-21% with death by gun at LA - 7.7% MO-5.4% MD-5.1%.

Numbers don't lie. More guns = more gun deaths. And I don't think you can point toward founding father culture as much as you can point to local laws that impact the figures. I'd have to do a little more research, but I'm predicting that states with tougher laws for guns include MA, NY and RI and that more lax laws exist in LA, MO and MD.

That's not the sole intent of what I said or suggested, but thanks for the red herring, fallacious reasoning and mischaracterization anyway.

 

But you still proved my point; there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly.

 

Hard for me to understand your intent when you make such broad statements and back it up with nothing but unsubstantiated information. If what it is is your opinion or your gut instinct then it's fine to say that. You'd get more respect.

Forgive me if it was said many pages back, but what are your suggestions? All you've done the last page or so is pick apart others thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

 

I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

 

 

I never suggested Hawaii was devoid of poverty, violence, crime, etc.

 

How popular are guns in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures?

 

I can't speak to popularity in those countries.

 

 

How popular/prevalent are guns and gun ownership rights in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures compared to mainland USA? More or less? Take a guess.

Those cultures have had a greater influence on Hawaii for a much longer period of time than USA's influence has had.

 

I think that's a broad assumption - what I can point to as fact is:

• There were a total of 420,409 firearms were registered in Hawaii from 2000 to 2014.
• This is on top of the 1 million firearms that were already in the state

(data is from the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and the Honolulu Police Department)

That means there could be more guns in Hawaii than residents, according to data from the Attorney General’s office., or at least approx 1 firearm per state resident.

What they do different is regulate them:

• Before purchase one must obtain a permit from county chief of police.
• You must be 21 years old and a U.S. citizen.
• You must be fingerprinted and photographed for a criminal background check and affirm by affidavit your mental health and lack of drug or alcohol addiction or criminal background.
• You authorize release of your medical history and give the name and address of your doctor (if any).
• Your doctor is required to release any mental health information pertinent to your acquiring firearms.
• A drunk driving record, history of serious psychiatric diagnosis, or any treatment for alcohol or drug abuse will result in denial of your permit. A letter from a physician will be required to establish that you are “no longer adversely affected”.
• You will wait 14 days to get your permit.
• The new law requires an investigation anytime a registered owner is arrested for any cause. (there is a database up to date showing all current owners)
• There are tight restrictions on what kind of weapons are legal (i.e. Full auto (machine gun) firearms are not permitted in Hawaii (since statehood) except for military and law enforcement. Assault pistols (essentially large semi auto pistols of cosmetic paramilitary appearance, usually accepting detachable magazines of over 10 rounds capacity), are banned. Hawaii state law prohibits greater than 10 round detachable pistol magazines (including rifle magazines capable of use in any pistol, such as the AR-15/M16, AK, M1 carbine, H&K carbine, Thompson, and aftermarket Ruger .22 magazines) Sawed off shotguns/rifles, stun guns, silencers, etc are all illegal.

​For sure, gun ownership is less prevalent in Hawaii 6.7% vs. Illinois 20.2%. Murders by gun are also less in HI (.5% vs 2.8% in IL). Is this because of their "cultural heritage" or the laws?

If you think longevity of stateship or cultural background from hundreds of years ago is a factor, then one would think that Massachusetts, NY, RI would all be high, because they've been states the longest and were created by folks who were gun toting advocates during the Revolution right? Respective ownership numbers are: 12.6%, 18%, 12.8% and murders per 100,000 are low, 1.8% (MA), 2.7% (NY), 1.5% (RI).

Instead your leaders in gun deaths are the the states (ironically) with the high gun ownership: LA-44% MO-41%, MD-21% with death by gun at LA - 7.7% MO-5.4% MD-5.1%.

Numbers don't lie. More guns = more gun deaths. And I don't think you can point toward founding father culture as much as you can point to local laws that impact the figures. I'd have to do a little more research, but I'm predicting that states with tougher laws for guns include MA, NY and RI and that more lax laws exist in LA, MO and MD.

 

 

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

 

I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

 

 

I never suggested Hawaii was devoid of poverty, violence, crime, etc.

 

How popular are guns in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures?

 

I can't speak to popularity in those countries.

 

Re: Hawaii, they have some serious advantages when it comes to enforcing gun laws. Mainly geography. I'm not sure we can look at them for solutions in Chicago and Florida.

 

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere.

 

I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

After reading a few samples I'm going to use my better judgement and opt to not read the entire thread.

 

Has any gun control measures that would have prevented the Pulse night club shooting been suggested?

nope. We have had a few ideas thrown out but pretty quickly stomped on.

 

 

 

You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

Like, that's not even remotely true.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

 

30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded.

 

This is a bit dated because (as we've covered previously) the CDC now is no longer able to compile information on gun deaths, but in a study done looking at hospital admissions, ER, police reports and medical examiners and published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care in 1998:

 

628 shootings in 6 cities over the course of 12-18 months

• Only 13 were in self-defense or legally justifiable (including three shootings by law enforcement officers on duty)
• 54 shootings were unintentional
• 118 were attempted or completed suicides
• 438 were assaults or homicides

In this non biased, scientific review for every 1 time a gun was used for self-defense there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or murders and 11 suicides or suicide attempts.

 

So perhaps your home is highly susceptible for invasion (I agree with Landlord on this one however), even so the likelihood of that gun in your bedside table or the one locked up in the safe actually being used for something other than protecting yourself is quite high. To boot you know how you want to "protect my family"? The numbers also show that those most often impacted by those murders, accidents, suicides etc are women and children.

 

The issue with that data is that it doesn't include that many times, the intruder survives. The goal isn't to kill the intruder, it's to stop them. And there's the issue where the homeowner being armed and producing a firearm scares off the intruder.

 

It does include all shootings, survival or not. I'll have to dig into the data a bit more, It may not include if a gun scared someone without being fired (they would have to have filed a police report at a min or gone to the hospital). How often has that happened to you?

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

Suicide trial published in the American Journal of Epidemiology - Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

 

You can cry about protecting your home and your family all you want, but the statistical likelihood of an armed home invasion at your house is way less than the statistical likelihood of you having a mental breakdown and killing yourself, getting into an escalated argument and killing someone else, one of your children accidentally getting their hands on your gun, etc.

Like, that's not even remotely true.

 

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

 

30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded.

 

This is a bit dated because (as we've covered previously) the CDC now is no longer able to compile information on gun deaths, but in a study done looking at hospital admissions, ER, police reports and medical examiners and published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care in 1998:

628 shootings in 6 cities over the course of 12-18 months

• Only 13 were in self-defense or legally justifiable (including three shootings by law enforcement officers on duty)
• 54 shootings were unintentional
• 118 were attempted or completed suicides
• 438 were assaults or homicides

In this non biased, scientific review for every 1 time a gun was used for self-defense there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or murders and 11 suicides or suicide attempts.

So perhaps your home is highly susceptible for invasion (I agree with Landlord on this one however), even so the likelihood of that gun in your bedside table or the one locked up in the safe actually being used for something other than protecting yourself is quite high. To boot you know how you want to "protect my family"? The numbers also show that those most often impacted by those murders, accidents, suicides etc are women and children.

At least somebody is doing something ... one of the states with the least amount of gun deaths, tightest legislation and they still felt it was time to do more.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0626/Hawaii-steps-into-gun-control-fray-joining-state-by-state-approach

What is wrong with us?

Alligator attacks have resulted in 19 deaths in the US since 2000

Lane Graves dies in June 2016 and the world flips out, blames that parents, blames Disney, Disney changes signage, Disney puts up fences and Disney prepares for a law suit.

Gun deaths (does not include suicides) in the US ~6000 from January-June 2016

Majority of US citizens demand change. Some citizens bear down and claim it's what our founding fathers would have wanted - that when they wrote the constitution they were taking into account the high capacity weapons and mass murders that would one day be the norm. Gun manufacturers and gun related companies sink more money into the NRA and other lobbyist groups. NRA reminds their whores in public office to ignore their responsibility to represent their constituents. Zero movement is made, or even really attempted to take care of this national epidemic. And tomorrow is a new day.

It makes me sick.

 

 

 

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.

 

 

Ugh. That is such an overused melodramatic excuse/reason. Such tunnel-vision can be used to justify almost anything if you conveniently choose to omit/ignore all other conceivable circumstances, consequences or impracticalities.

 

Thank you. Think what you may, but if your family was victim, your friend was killed in an accident - whatever, you'd think this to be the case.

 

And if that melodramatic tunnel vision statement isn't correct, what exactly is the number? Is it 100 people? 1000?

 

 

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.

 

 

Ugh. That is such an overused melodramatic excuse/reason. Such tunnel-vision can be used to justify almost anything if you conveniently choose to omit/ignore all other conceivable circumstances, consequences or impracticalities.

 

Thank you. Think what you may, but if your family was victim, your friend was killed in an accident - whatever, you'd think this to be the case.

I'm still not seeing any proposed gun law, short of prohibition, that would reduce suicide rates. I agree that suicide is often transient, but on that note, most people don't go in, buy a gun, and then shoot themselves the same day.

 

Point being, and speaking of personal experiences of friends who committed suicide, the guns used are often legally purchased and owned by the person well prior to the suicide.

 

So, if suicide risk is really what gun laws are intended to reduce, then prohibition is the course. Because, as of yet, I haven't seen a tailored set of law proposed to keep guns out of the hands of suicide risks but still in the hands of other citizens.

 

Psych evals are the only method I've seen proposed, but that would just open a whole other can of worms around doctor liability and privacy. In my opinion, those suggestions are really just measures proposed at soft prohibition. I. e., we'll make it so arduous to obtain a gun, that people just won't do it... Same tactic social conservatives use to fight abortion.

I dont' disagree with you CM - all the gun suicides I know have been with a legally purchased gun, most however have been purchased by someone else and used however and I don't know how we could monitor or secure that from happening.

I am not opposed to prohibition, but I understand that there are sportsman who will freak at this ... what are your thoughts on limiting the types of guns made available, or limiting the number of guns a person can own? If every 4 years just like your drivers license you have to "renew" your ownership? I seriously don't understand why anyone other than a policeman needs anything other than a rifle or shotgun. Admittedly I have very little experience with guns of late, but help me understand why a hunter needs a hand gun? Or a high powered multi round gun?

I guess I don't understand why "soft" prohibition isn't an option. Like others here have more eloquently expressed earlier, I just struggle with the idea that we shouldn't do anything, because we anticipate that it won't work. Nothing will be 100%, but then you tweak and make adjustments. We've got to try.

 

Guns are a problem we choose to keep. Other developed countries in the world don't have nearly the gun population, nearly the % gun ownership, and nearly the resulting gun violence. And yet, they do still have guns.

 

This won't change in America because we as a society have decided that gun ownership, above all other kinds of private property ownership, is some sort of sacred birthright.

 

And so we'll continue to pay out the costs. Is it worth it?

Probably, yes.

 

2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates?

 

I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement.

 

Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring.

 

I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.

Also, 7,000 people died so far this year? That seems under pace, with it being June.

 

Let's say hypothetically we could cut gun deaths by 50% through enforcement of more gun laws costing $500,000,000.

 

That would save 3,500 lives so far this year and let's say 15,000 by year's end.

 

What if we took that half a billion dollars and spent it on medical research that saved terminally ill patients. Or on education initiatives. Or on charitable work for the homeless (who we know die in the streets).

 

Something makes me feel like that $500,000,000 could save more innocent lives elsewhere than through more gun laws.

While I don't disagree that money should be put toward research for terminal illness, homeless and etc what you missed here was that this cost would have immediate impact on lives saved. With proper gun restrictions we could save lives and the results would be seen quickly.

All these initiatives need funding no doubt. Elect a dem and we'll take care of the homelessness and charitable work, and if you allow stem cell research we can make headway with medical research (said with kinda sarcasm).

 

 

 

And unless that woman had a criminal history, what piece of legislation other than a complete ban of firearms would have prevented that? Even in that case, she still could have done it with a myriad of other weapons.

Bingo. Guns are the problem. They are freaking dangerous, and one should have to pass a high hurdle in order to obtain the privilege.

 

Treating it as a birthright is not the way to go.

 

Granting (or allowing one to keep) a driver's license to someone who hasn't proved they aren't a reckless driver is a dangerous situation. Same with guns.

 

Guns are NOT the problem and they are NOT inherently dangerous. People are the problem and many of them ARE inherently dangerous.

 

I have a loaded Kimber .45 sitting on top of my computer tower and it has never once jumped up and committed a crime. I suspect it never will.

 

You want to take away our birthright to own firearms. I want to take away your birthright to Free Speech. Speech can be dangerous so we must treat it as a privilege and not a birthright. (See how easy that is?) I don't want to hear how speech can't kill or that it could never be as dangerous as guns. Adolf Hitler inspired an entire nation to go to war with his speeches. Over 60 million people died before that nightmare ended.

 

Btw, there has never been a consensus that the 2nd Amendment is a collective right instead of an individual one. There have been many people (mostly Democrats) who have made that claim. Before the NRA-ILA became the force it is now, 34/36 Constitutional scholars said it was an individual right.

 

What about all the defensive gun uses in America every day? Every single day good guys use guns to foil crimes and in most cases the weapon never gets fired. Twice in my life I have pulled a weapon in my defense. Once to stop a crazed homeless man from entering my vehicle and attacking me (yes, he was crazed and I do not have the time to relay that story atm) and the other time it was to stop a guy from climbing into my apartment through my bedroom window while I slept. I didn't fire my weapon in either case but I certainly stopped a pair of bad guys.

 

Defensive gun use in America has been studied and estimates run anywhere from 100,000 to 3 million times per year depending on who did the study and their methodology. How many peoples lives have been saved by defensive gun use? We'll never know the answer to that one because it is impossible to know. I do think it's reasonable to assume that number would be in the thousands and possibly many thousands each year. Far too often we focus on the bad and forget to look for any good. The NRA used to publish stories about citizens defending themselves with guns and all of the stories were taken from local newspapers. It used to be posted online but I am not seeing it anymore. Read through some of those stories and you just might change your mind on some things.

 

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

 

Actually, guns themselves are a problem. 86 percent of juveniles in correctional facilities have reported owning a gun, which by it's very nature is illegal. 65 percent reported to own three or more guns. With 300 million-ish guns in America, it stands to reason tens of millions of those are illegal.

 

So, the ease of access and trade of guns are a problem. Aka... guns are a problem.

 

Second, please cut the following nonsense out.

You want to take away our birthright to own firearms.

 

I have not seen a single person here legitimately suggest that we round up everyone's guns. This is a paranoid delusion. The legitimate discussion moving forward should be addressing what we can do, as a nation, to limit access of guns to people who don't need them and work on social issues that lead to gun violence.

 

One statistic that is possible to know is how many people have died so far this year from gun violence. I'll just keep updating everyone until it starts to sink in - 6, 495 so far this year.

 

Not sure if it's new or if I just picked up on it, but wanted to tell you how much I like your Emerson quote on your sig.

 

I mean ... I'm not trying to be a jerk. But he's not exactly screaming "D1 RB" to me. And 245 might be light.

Maybe a plan B in case Miles goes elsewhere

 

If you watch his film he's actually pretty agile and moves well. I'll take a heavy RB w/speed and good feet any day.

 

https://twitter.com/jcalv6/status/746924674156625921

Is that a commitment??

 

It's a commitment to wearing a kick ass shirt.

Is it wrong that I think that Brenda Tracey is kinda hot?

Not wrong to think it, but to take the time to post that here - yes.

 

 

Calvin...just a theory I got going.

He decided not to come up this weekend - planning a ND trip (unclear if that was instead of Lincoln) so I doubt it.

Ya it was a wild "theory" about him making surprise visit, mostly a joke.

 

I would have loved that. I think he's gonna end up with us but this ND offer has me a little off balance. He seems pretty stoked about i, we gotta get him back to remind him about why he loves it at NE.

Calvin...just a theory I got going.

He decided not to come up this weekend - planning a ND trip (unclear if that was instead of Lincoln) so I doubt it.