User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.7284 seconds
53 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Funny, I was reading 1776 last night and it starts with some Brit asserting that the colonists were all traitorous cowards who would disperse the first time they were met with force. (Followed by a quote from a Major General who asserted he could calm the colonies with just 5,000 men)
I certainly grant the technical aspect of your question, but the Remington 870 has been in mlilitary use for some time, and shotguns in general make for pretty terrifying anti-personnel weapons. They are extremely useful in assaulting something, and properly kitted out, low profile, lightweight, and exceptionally tactically effective.
People keep getting struck by lightning or stung to death by bees too. Doesn't mean we should panic and be irrational about the risks presented. School shootings are terrifying, but so is the prospect of being mauled by a chimpanzee, or tortured to death by a serial killer. Lots of stuff is scary; people need to maintain some perspective.
He had a bolt-action 30-30. I highly doubt it was single-shot. Yes, you have to work the bolt to chamber another round, but 30-30's do have clips that can be changed out pretty quickly. And if I am going to be shot, I would MUCH rather be shot by a .223 than a .30-.30. An assault rifle is more dangerous because of the rapid rate of fire, but don't knock a deer rifle thinking it's one bullet, stop, one bullet, stop, etc.
the whole point behind the assault weapon concept when designed in WWII was to use lower powered ammo. Almost all infantry combat takes place <400 yards. Low power ammo is lighter, cheaper, and more more damage inflicting. Nato uses a 5.62mm round as standard - it's analogous to a .223.
That's 5.56*
And it's not remotely similar to .22LR.
* You're probably thinking 7.62 Nato, which is analogous to .308
Oh, fully understood - I am just wondering how that shotgun is any more dangerous than something that would be used for duck or turkey hunting? Lighter materials and a better recoil system maybe?
So say America's right wing loons.
I mean terrible as in horrific, and also as in unreliable. You're not always going to have people willing to do that. For every Arizona gang rush you'd have a group of helpless people waiting for the ###### to run out of ammo. If we can't think of something better than that we should probably just quit having a country and revert to barbarism. (I know the libertarians would like that)
What would you consider a more appropriate level of concern?
And it's not remotely similar to .22LR.
* You're probably thinking 7.62 Nato, which is analogous to .308
Of course correct on all counts - typing too fast.
Yes, the 5.56 has greater stopping power and more powder - my point was that low power ammo is not a refutation of the concept, that a lightweight, concealable high rate of fire semi auto with an expanded magazine capability certainly qualifies to me as far more tactically useful than anything else, and meets the spirit of the assault rifle definition.
What makes you think anyone is? There's no "panic" and no "irrationality."(*)
You're the one being irrational, by giving too much credit to the "right" that's being weighed against the risk. The "right" is worth a very small amount of risk, as the massacre of six-year-olds in the context in which it occurred makes abundantly clear. The atrocity didn't create a new calculus of risk/reward in people's minds; it pointed out how absurd the existing one was.
(*) Beyond the tautological, "You're thinking of this differently than I am."
We should use reason and science to determine how big of a threat school shootings really are and proceed from there. Right now, the nation is stuck in a glass cage of emotion; that's perfectly natural, but its not the time to be making policy decisions.
Barbarism is able bodied people hiding under desks hoping the killer shoots somebody else instead.
I think this is true. In actuality individual events that kill people are always going to happen. Weather (for example) happens, and right now there is not much we can do to change the weather (crazy Chinese Olympic plans notwithstanding), but we can have weather alerts, use technology, building codes, insurance schemes, and so on to minimize the impact of weather.
As a society we do this all the time, and have throughout history. Progress is made and the world is safer than it was 100 years ago by a silly amount. What I (and some others are arguing) is we can work against gun violence, we can do things, but we need to use evidence and having a huge block of people screaming Second Amendment and "More Guns!" is not very helpful.
There are already some gun limits. We can adjust them, use technology and modern health care (including on the mental illness side) and come up with solutions that reduce (not eliminates, but reduces) gun violence over time without making us slaves to the fascist state (or whatever it is people think is going to happen if they can't have a automatic gun with a 100 round clip under their pillow each night).
That might be a worthy project, but there's little doubt that it's a big enough threat to outweigh a person's "right" to possess numerous semiautomatic weapons and fast clips, which is really the issue at hand.
The killer's mother had no right to possess that level of weaponry, and, in context, doing so posed a reckless danger to the nearby school. Her conduct was highly, highly reckless.
No one is suggesting that the typical pistol or hunting shotgun be outlawed. Had the killer taken one of these, he would have killed far fewer children.
Doesn't mean we should trash all the lightning rods because, hey, what could go wrong.
Cue the outrage change from the NRA not saying something to the NRA saying something.
The NRA is planning to hold a major news conference in the Washington, DC area on Friday, December 21.
Cue the stupid.
I see they hired a different publicist than usual to craft that one.
I found jumping into the car and leaving my girlfriend to fend for herself the best (and noblest) strategy the first time I was confronted with a bear.
Essentially "gang-rushing," was a standard infantry tactic for oh, most of human history, it ceased being effective awhile back, and became insanely suicidally ineffective with the advent of machine guns...
Speaking of libertarianism, I heard something about this on NPR last night and was wondering how this well this was going to work. According to what I heard they have plans to have a city up by 2014 and was reminded me of the video game Bioshock. Hoping this means we will be seeing some "Big Daddy's" soon.
The Austrians found this out when they fought the Prussians in 1866 when the Prussians had the "needle" gun.
To be fair, the Austrians had them too, they just got some bad advice from Jon Snow.
That should make teachers' union negotiations trickier.
Thank goodness you're conducting. Wouldn't want someone who didn't read the score.
One of the comments on the Media Matters site's link to McArdle's piece put it best: "You first."
I'd say the Romans or perhaps even the Greeks 2,000 or more years ago made "gang-rushing" foolish and ineffective. For about the last 2500 years now we've had plenty of examples of where "gang-rushing" an organized and trained body of soldiers is basically suicide or at the very least very costly.
Link doesn't work. But I googled for some stories. This is my favorite quote:
Stick them with the pointy end sounds like good advice to me.
Costly, yes, ineffective sometimes, effective sometimes
1914-1918- ludicrously suicidal
It actually kind of worked for the Red Army in WWII urban warfare- the key was close range and submachine guns- have 30 guys bum rush a machine gun nest, or a building- and sure you'd take casualties, but some guys would get in range to make effective use of their PPShs. It didn't really work if you had too much ground to cover before you got in reasonable range to use your submachine guns though- 30 men charging an MG34 or MG42 could be 30 dead men pretty quickly.
1) We should use science and reason. Thanks for clarifying that. It'd be terrible if you were just throwing those terms around emotionally and without any rational use case behind them. It's almost as if you just want to delay thinking about the issue until public opinion recalcifies to your preferred status quo ante.
2) People treat mass shootings differently than lightening strikes because mass shootings aren't random acts of nature. Good lord. How obvious is that?
Other bits:
1) The shotgun was included in the graphic because it was one of the weapons used in Aurora.
2) That's a reasonable statement from the NRA. I expect they'll #### it up eventually, but at this point, not too bad.
3) Megan McArdle is apparently exactly as stupid as her reputation.
I would not be totally shocked if the NRA proposed some mild reform. It would be smart of them to agree to some upper-limit for high-capacity magazines to head off anything stronger. Figuring out the least-costly reform is generally smart business, though the NRA has been able to follow a different strategy the last 10 years.
I agree. From the silent period, the lack of any push-back against the solidifying "this one changes things" narrative, to the low key press release above, it wouldn't shock me if they came out looking to recoup the potential big hit by taking a small hit up front.
I'm sure people involved in MAAD, abolitionists, etc. all had their source of anger, often from direct experience. Who can blame them from working towards their goals.
I think Newtown is far more disgusting to the average person from afar than Columbine. Columbine at least made some sort of twisted sense. An adult gunning down six year olds, with twice the casualties, is just evil, with the parent abetting the perp besides.
I have no illusions about the fetishizing of guns in this country, or the power of the NRA. But there have been many movements to make things better in our world. There have been many forces, like the NRA, that seemingly sit triumphant atop sectors of society. And it always changes. I do not expect it will be an easy or quick change, but the attempt needs to be made.
i am surprised at you.
wayne isn't going to concede anything. he considers the president illegitimate and hence the administration without standing
EDIT: Ah. LaPierre. I wasn't aware of the fact that he was a birther, Harv.
i think wayne is now convinced that the president's middle name is corrupt because he uses that word every time he discusses the president
Bioshock Infinite (the new Bioshock game) is set in the floating city of Columbia. But instead of a Randian paradise, the city's running model is american exceptional-ism. Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
I admit, the idea of some vague thousands of Galtian supermen begging the socialist states of the world for help as they slowly drown in shark infested waters is also amusing to me as well.
wayne whips up a fervor. i think he's feeling his oats given the nra's winning streak
I guess Pirate Bay and Anonymous will all need homes eventually.
Everybody will have a gun on the Galtopolis, and maybe some sarin gas too. Pirates are less of a risk than some charismatic fellow on the boat turning into Oliver Cromwell.
Hmmm... do they sell fertilizer at Dollar Tree?
So nonobvious that it's wrong. Evil is about as natural a phenomenon as there is. And if we can't recognize it in advance, it can't be stopped. And we can't recognize it in advance with these types of school shootings. The kid was "strange." Quiet, reserved, unable to adjust or fit in to normal society. Cue scores of kids across the world.
And school shootings are relatively rare. But when they happen, they are horrific and shocking on a large scale. They cue obviously natural feelings of outrage. That doesn't mean an intelligent person reacts to it with a small mind, by thinking that tweaking gun control laws will amount to a hill of beans difference.
All of that said, the NRA is in a lose-lose position. No matter what they say or do, people will demonize them, if not outright blame them. The NRA is Mark McGwire testifying in front of Congress in 2005, with people demanding to know why he killed Taylor Hooton. The lynch mob is out in full force, because every crisis provides an opportunity; here, the senseless evil visited on dozens of victims is being shamelessly used as a vehicle to further the left wing agenda.
The Calcium Nitrate used in Afghani IEDs comes from a foreign country (Pakistan). It requires pretty significant amounts to construct a meaningful IED. Assuming that the domestic tyranny would be clever enough to limit access to massive quantities of native chemicals, it's going to be pretty tough for the Wolverines to go that route. As Harv noted upthread, it's extremely tightly controlled in this country.
The Tea Partiers will certainly suggest the idea.
As for the NRA not being lynched...there is nothing they can do to change the minds of people who say such stupid things as "The blood of those children is on your hands NRA!! I hope you all get a bullet in the brain! Rot in Hell!!"
So why did it work in Australia?
When will you mark your beliefs to market?
Mmm-hmmm.
Is it Bill Murray in Ghostbusters or Chevy in Caddyshack who says, "Well done. Well said."? I'm leaning with Chevy.
It's a reason I maintain my membership with the ACLU, despite disagreeing at time vehemently with things they do. I would no longer renew if they started responding to attacks on free speech with "Nah, it's cool brah! That was mean ol' speech anyway, so who gives a ####?"
It's *supposed* to be hard to dislodge rights.
A guy on right-wing radio today (I sometimes listen so you don't have to!) was claiming that South Carolina schools have "peace officers" - or something like that - who are at every school every day packing heat, so that no one could kill this many kids at their schools.
Release the hounds!
LOL. The dolt who said that a person who was shot multiple times in the face was a victim "only in the most technical sense" and then disputed the idea that a person who killed kindergartners was "deranged" thinks someone else should "slither away in embarrassment." Good times.
Why do you keep pretending that comparing a 310,000,000-person country that has a 250-year history of private gun ownership with low-population island nations is anything resembling a 1:1 comparison?
This is somewhat of a trick question, for two reasons:
1. The overwhelming majority of spree killers target so-called "gun-free" zones, where — surprise, surprise — law-abiding people don't carry guns; and
2. Just as "Plane lands safely" is rarely a headline, the national media doesn't rush to scenes where 20 people aren't killed.
GOP Critics line up against Hagel.
Is it that or is it that they pick nearby places where there are sure to be a lot of people, or to which they have some connection, real or imagined?
(and now I'll suddenly get accused of being an NRA member or something)
http://www.oregonlive.com/clackamascounty/index.ssf/2012/12/security_guard_said_he_had_rob.html
"Meli earlier told a KGW reporter that he heard three gunshots, and then positioned himself behind a pillar in the mall. Meli said he saw the gunman working on his rifle, pulling a charging handle and hitting the side of the weapon.
Meli said he then pulled out his Glock 22 pistol and aimed it at the suspect. But when he saw someone move behind Roberts, Meli decided against firing, concerned he might hit an innocent person.
Meli also told KGW that Roberts appeared to spot him and that afterward, Meli heard only one more shot, and suspects it was the one Roberts used to kill himself."
Well, being as how at last count you've made 2,888 posts denouncing Obamacare with a vehemence that Hollingsworth Hound himself would admire, can we now expect 2,887 posts proclaiming that gun control is the end of freedom as we've known it? Or are some whatevers more whatever than others?
Dan, out of curiosity, with which ACLU actions/stances do you disagree? I don't know enough about the ACLU to know of its more controversial stances (beyond defending the KKK and things of that nature).
Pass me the smelling salts if the ACLU's support for many forms of affirmative action isn't one of them.
How about Canada? Japan? The entire European continent taken together as compared to the United States? Does it still all come down to a wailing, "But we're different! And can't change! It's part of Holy Scripture!"
You right-wingers (and that includes libertarians) need to look at it like others look at a Abstinence Only solution.
Combined Population 391 million (Germany, France, Italy, UK, Spain, Canada, Australia)
Latest available annual gun homicides in the seven nations: 906
US Population 312 million and US Gun Homicides: 9,960
America's murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries which have tough gun control laws.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/the-gun-challenge-strict-laws-work.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/opinion/after-newtown-mourning-outrage-and-questions.html
except a higher number of 'mass shootings' (undefined term I know) have often been carried out before, during and after the assault weapons ban, with pistols, revolvers, handguns with standard and non-standard magazines, shotguns to include pump and break action, as well as bolt action rifles. Not a statement reflective of a position on a type of assault weapons ban (the previous version was very flimsy), just a criticism of its supposed efficacy.
Some variations of the AR-15 were still legal during the assault weapons ban, as were most semi-automatic handguns. He could have had something that fired faster if he wanted.
Like other shootings before it, the Newtown, Conn., tragedy has reawakened America to its national fixation with firearms. No country in the world has more guns per capita, with some 300 million civilian firearms now in circulation, or nearly one for every adult.
There are 300 million U.S. adults?
In the case of the United States, exponentially more: the American murder rate is roughly 15 times that of other wealthy countries, which have much tougher laws controlling private ownership of guns.
Is Russia not a wealthy nation? Nevermind, Russia's homicide rate is 4 times as high as the U.S. and they have 1/10th of the guns. Which country has a homicide rate that is 1/15th the U.S.' homicide rate? see page 20. Carlisle Moody's study on Firearms and Homicide from 2009.
answer: none.
Moody's study on Firearms and Homicide, 2009 (this is a pdf)
Fake but accurate I guess.
Australia isn't an island. It's a continent.
So that's #1. Second of all, it has 22 million people. Japan has 122 million people.
Third of all, what about the study posted a couple of pages ago (linked here again for your reference) that showed that the federal assault weapons ban can be directly linked to a decrease in homicides.
Gun control has the inconvenient habit of working in every place it's been tried.
Russia per capita income: $12,993
United States per capita income: $48,328
So no, it's not. Neither is Mexico ($10,146), in case you're curious.
Classrooms are not secure at all. I feel like people who are proposing this haven't inside a classroom.
My high school had an SRO (school resource officer - in fact there were two of them for at least one of the years I was there), which was a county Sheriff's deputy on permanent assignment to the school (he was armed). Since my high school would have been considered one of the lowest risk ones in the area as far as crime is concerned I assume all the other high schools had one as well. It wouldn't be surprising at all if some South Carolina schools had the same thing though probably not the elementary and middle schools.
Not that it really matters in many cases, most schools are pretty big so chances are any gunman is going to have plenty of time to kill a lot of people before any officer can get there.
In Tennessee, it sounds like the legislature is considering a bill to place armed and non-uniformed safety officers inside of schools, perhaps by arming and training teachers, on the theory that gunmen will just shoot a safety officer in uniform but will be dissuaded by the idea that there will be in every school an armed teacher somewhere in the building without a uniform.
Maybe, if the NRA was the ACLU of the 2nd amendment. They aren't.
It depends on what part of the 2nd amendment you care about. If you care about the well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, then the reason the people keep and bear arms is for the militia. Now what security means could be questioned. A local police force? Defense against Indians? A backing support force to the federal army? A possible usurper to the federal army?
If it's the last one, as some favor, well that has failed. They tried with the Confederacy, the federals came up with enough forces to defeat them anyway, and the advocates for the usurpers/seceders were proposing continuing a practice that was barbaric anyway.
Anyway, the NRA, libertarians, et al prefer to focus on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And they'll also ignore that "the people" is a plural and that while the people as a whole may not have their rights infringed, it may be possible that individuals in the group could be. The way they read it, an individual cannot have their right to keep and bear arms infringed, militia or no militia.
If the NRA wanted to be the ACLU of the 2nd amendment, they would argue that individual persons should be allowed to own poison gas, nuclear weaponry, etc. I have no knowledge of them making such an argument. They argue for as few restrictions as possible against guns, while refraining from more unpopular stands that might hurt the overall cause. It's the very refusal to argue the tough cases that the preferred Constitutional interpretation would really merit that changes them from the ACLU of the 2nd amendment to a pro-gun advocacy group, which is what they truly are.
If gun control had the inconvenient habit of working in every place it's been tried, Washington, D.C., and Chicago would have been the two safest cities in America for the past 30 years. We all saw how that worked out.
Where are you going with this? Mexico has some of the most oppressive gun laws in the world, yet it has some of the world's worst gun violence.*
And before the lefties here start blaming the U.S.'s gun laws for Mexico's gun violence, keep in mind that there's absolutely nothing stopping Mexico from doing a better job of securing its border with the U.S.
(* No thanks to the Obama administration.)
Nonsense. The NRA doesn't argue that violent felons and the mentally deranged can't have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.
More nonsense. The plain text of the Second Amendment says Americans have the right to "keep and bear" arms, not "keep and deploy" or "keep and launch from a safe distance of 20 miles." There's simply no real-world scenario in which a U.S. citizen would have reason to "bear" poison gas or tactical nuclear weapons on U.S. soil, and the fact the NRA and SAF don't argue for such a ludicrous position isn't a "gotcha" in the least.
Speaking of the NRA and ACLU, it's being bandied about as a given that the NRA has to give on certain aspects of gun rights. But what about the ACLU? Do the lefties here concede that the ACLU has to give when it comes to the government's ability to detain people who are, or are suspected of being, mentally deranged? Or are the lefties going to pretend that Newtown was 100 percent about gun rights and zero percent about anything else?
I can't answer this without looking at a comprehensive list of spree killings and the reported motives for each, but I've read several articles in the past few days that have claimed that all but one spree killing in the past 20 years in which 3 or more people were killed occurred in a so-called "gun-free zone." (The Gabrielle Giffords shooting supposedly is the only exception.)
Not public, but it was also a "gun-free" zone, as the shooter's fellow military members were unarmed in the area in which the shootings occurred. (There's no way Hasan kills 13 and injures 29 more if he was in a room full of armed military members.)
Did you read past the first two words?
The "public" part is hardly relevant, but if the second part is true, then fair enough. Although I'd be curious to know in what proximity armed personnel were stationed. The point is that I can't imagine that universal open-/concealed-carry would lead to an environment better equipped to abate a spree shooting than what was in place at Ft. Hood.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main