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 0.7075 seconds
50 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.
The point isn't whether the guns were useful? How absurd. That's typical leftist flimflammery, along the lines of Chicago requiring that gun-permit applicants spend time at a gun range but then banning gun ranges.* What's the point of owning a non-functional firearm, or a firearm that takes so long to become functional that it's essentially useless?
(* Which, thankfully, was tossed as quickly as it was passed.)
Five thousand seven hundred and forty children and teens died from gunfire in the United States, just in 2008 and 2009... The overwhelming majority of those children would have been saved with effective gun control. We know that this is so, because, in societies that have effective gun control, children rarely, rarely, rarely die of gunshots.
...Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on bacterial infections. In Scotland, after Dunblane, in Australia, after Tasmania, in Canada, after the Montreal massacre—in each case the necessary laws were passed to make gun-owning hard, and in each case… well, you will note the absence of massacre-condolence speeches made by the Prime Ministers of Canada and Australia, in comparison with our own President.
...the central insight of the modern study of criminal violence is that all crime—even the horrific violent crimes of assault and rape—is at some level opportunistic. Building a low annoying wall against them is almost as effective as building a high impenetrable one. This is the key concept of Franklin Zimring’s amazing work on crime in New York; everyone said that, given the social pressures, the slum pathologies, the profits to be made in drug dealing, the ascending levels of despair, that there was no hope of changing the ever-growing cycle of violence. The right wing insisted that this generation of predators would give way to a new generation of super-predators.
What the New York Police Department found out, through empirical experience and better organization, was that making crime even a little bit harder made it much, much rarer. This is undeniably true of property crime, and common sense and evidence tells you that this is also true even of crimes committed by crazy people (to use the plain English the subject deserves). Those who hold themselves together enough to be capable of killing anyone are subject to the same rules of opportunity as sane people. Even madmen need opportunities to display their madness, and behave in different ways depending on the possibilities at hand. Demand an extraordinary degree of determination and organization from someone intent on committing a violent act, and the odds that the violent act will take place are radically reduced, in many cases to zero.
...Even within this gun-crazy country, states with strong gun laws have fewer gun murders (and suicides and accidental killings) than states without them. ...the inflated figure of guns used in self-defense every year, running even to a million or two million, is a pure fantasy, even though it’s still cited by pro-gun enthusiasts. Those hundreds of thousands intruders shot by gun owners left no records in emergency wards or morgues; indeed, left no evidentiary trace behind. This is because they did not exist.
...One would have to believe that Americans are somehow uniquely evil or depraved to think that the same forces that work on the rest of the planet won’t work here. It’s always hard to summon up political will for change, no matter how beneficial the change may obviously be. Summoning the political will to make automobiles safe was difficult; so was summoning the political will to limit and then effectively ban cigarettes from public places. At some point, we will become a gun-safe, and then a gun-sane, and finally a gun-free society.
...Some violence will always go on. What gun control is good at is controlling guns. Gun control will eliminate gun massacres in America as surely as antibiotics eliminate bacterial infections. As I wrote last week, those who oppose it have made a moral choice: that they would rather have gun massacres of children continue rather than surrender whatever idea of freedom or pleasure they find wrapped up in owning guns or seeing guns owned—just as the faith healers would rather watch the children die than accept the reality of scientific medicine.
Remember before Heller and McDonald, when D.C. and Chicago were the two safest cities in America? Ah, yes, those were the good old days.
Personally I don't like guns, but I don't spend my time plotting overthrowing the second amendment or anything. I already wrote (pages ago) what I think should be done. But heck let's just create some liberal boogeymen and argue with them.
The whole argument is just silly. But then all slippery slope arguments are silly. Measures should be supported or opposed based on what is in them.
Pretending if bans on magazines sizes larger than 20 are enacted then soon all guns will be banned is ridiculous. And if you argue that well some people think that then you are arguing those people are morons. And yes there are morons and they believe stupid things, but so what let's talk about issues.
And Joe since we are talking gun rights you never answered me regarding Australia. If Australia is not a good match for the US, then what country possibly could be? It is as similar a nation to the US as there is and plenty big enough to be a good test case for what a country can do about guns if there is the political will.
There were, of course, no suits against the states for violating the Bill of Rights until after the Civil War, because under Barron v. Baltimore the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states. In fact, no state laws were struck down under the Bill of Rights until 1932.
Prior to the Civil War, just twice were federal statutes struck down as unconstitutional: once in Marbury v Madison, and once in Dred Scott.
Australia is "as similar a nation to the U.S. as there is"? The U.S. has over 15 times more people than Australia, the U.S. is far more diverse than Australia, the U.S. has substantially greater problems with gangs and drugs, the U.S.'s illegitimacy rate is almost double Australia's, the two countries' cultures are different, the geography is different, the weather is different, the population densities are different, etc., etc.
All of that aside, what was the baseline? Was Australia having 20 mass shootings per year which dropped to zero after it passed some new gun laws, or did the country move to reduce guns after a one-off incident that was statistically unlikely in the first place?
How many massacres were there before Dunblane?
This isn't really addressing his question. Let's assume Australia sucks as a comparison. Is there a country that's better? Or is there no nation that's usefully comparable to America?
EDIT: In a general sense I'd assume Canada would be the obvious comparable nation for America in most cases, though Australia has certain elements that match up as well. To think about it another way...what's the rankings of the top five comparable nations to the US. Not to be too philosophical about it, but SOMEONE has to be the most comparable.
As a jumping-off point, I'd suggest any firearm that can be carried on one's person, the primary utility of which is self-defense or hunting.
What I still want to know is this: If there is a constitutional right to own firearms, but not every type of firearm, then where is the line we draw to separate the legal from illegal firearms? This is the question I want to answered by JoeK and the NRA types.
Russia?
That means you can keep your home defense and your hunting and still have decent firepower when THEY come for you.
edit: Or how bout just outlaw handguns.
As a comparison between Russian and American cultures I was going to suggest taking David Mitchell's take on Russian political culture and substituting "Russia" with "America" for ironic effect. But in retrospect I suppose some wouldn't see that much irony in it.
For the record, if Australian culture isn't a useful match to American culture I can't imagine Russian culture is. Maybe I'm judging too harshly the Russians I know, and my knowledge of Russian culture from reading...but similarities don't seem to abound, at least superficially.
Canada is probably better, but even Canada is lousy, given the huge difference in population, Canada's lower starting baselines re: crime, drugs, and gangs, substantial differences in ideology and culture*, etc.
(* Still with the monarchy, Canada? Seriously?)
I can't find a clip to link to, but that didn't work out too well for Leonard Smalls.
I'd prefer something I could mount to the hood of my car, like a flame thrower or an M2 machine gun.
Hey! I'm all for a nice heated debate on trivial matters like the economy and mass killings. But I'll not stand idly by while the authority of Our Great Lady is impugned.
Well...I will stand idly by. But I'll feel bad about doing so.
Grenades and rocket launchers are now considered "firearms," and their primary utility is self-defense or hunting?
Jiminy Christmas, I was just talking about Tex Cobb yesterday with a friend. For those of y'all who aren't familiar with his non-Hollywood efforts, Cobb took such an incredibly one-sided thrashing from heavyweight champion Larry Holmes during their 1982 match that commentator Howard Cosell publicly quit announcing boxing bouts out of disgust.
When Cobb was told of Cosell's self-imposed retirement from the sport, he replied, "If I eliminate heart disease, if I walk on water, if I come up with a cure for crippled kids, I can't image a greater gift to mankind. That is my greatest accomplishment."
I think I'm going to be wanting a less vague definition than "carried on one's person" and being useful for "self-defense or hunting."
"Oh, he used to torture people in the KGB, what a guy."
I think it's funny when you see this picture of Bush I..he looks sinister, whereas he normally looks avuncular.
I'd assume there's a law of diminishing returns. A grenade launcher can be effective self-defence. How much more effective than an M16? And how much more effective is an M16 to a hand-gun as an instrument of self-defence?
If you say, "you can have a hand-gun, but not an assault rifle" are you limiting the ability to exercise self-defence? Presumably this is why a grenade launcher is out. Sure, you can use a grenade launcher for self-defence, but a hand gun is likely just as effective in 99.99% of cases and so is not worth the risk of its potential for mass destruction.
Since private ownership of assault rifles is limited to those manufactured before 1986 and is otherwise tightly controlled, most of the above is moot. But by all means, don't let the facts get in the way of your little fear campaign.
It was only "vague" for people who don't know the definition of "firearm" and who believe grenades and rocket launchers are primarily used for self-defense or hunting.
Greg seems more of a Suicidal Tendencies guy.
Joe is really bad at knowing things about gun laws.
1. Original understanding of 2nd Amendment
2. Gun bans enacted in US cities
3. FAWB
4. STAY TUNED!!!!
LOL. Shipman thinks "assault rifle" and "assault weapon" are synonyms.
Then define them for us.
No, I gave a very simple answer:
... and you immediately jumped to "grenades and rocket launchers," despite neither of them being "firearms" and neither of them primarily being used for self-defense or hunting.
Since my working definition has no loopholes that would allow machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, or suitcase nukes, how much narrower does my definition need to be?
"Assault rifles" are automatic weapons. The definition of "assault weapon" is more of an "eyes of the beholder" thing in the gun debate, but the two aren't synonyms, and Shipman's attempted "gotcha" (#4626) was entirely devoid of the "gotcha" part.
Nope. But civilians can purchase semi-automatic assault rifles. Full auto is illegal (except in Kansas, oddly).
Then you would not consider semi-autos to fall under the "assault weapon" category?
If you don't think the two are synonyms, why did you reply to a comment about assault rifles with a recap of the assault weapons ban?
***
Well, in #4600, you asked about firearms, so that's what I answered. But anyway, the Second Amendment says "keep and bear." Aside from suicide bombers, one doesn't "bear" a grenade or suitcase nuke. One does "bear" a machine gun or rocket launcher, but that's where the "well regulated" part kicks in.
All semi-autos, including handguns? No.
Not all semi-autos, just some with certain features. Nobody (involved in the '94 law) thought (all semi-auto fell under assault weapon definition, if they did, they were morons) so either. The term is not a defined term in terms of there being a 'list of assault weapons', that's one of many problems with that law. It was as feckless as trying to ban 'muscle cars' or something. We could play the adult version of 'Highlights' with photos 'A' and 'B' of a very similar looking firearm, and one is defined as an 'assault weapon' and one is not, yet both are semi-automatic, you find the differences. A pistol grip, bayonet attachment, 'fire suppressor', etc. The law was totally cosmetic, Washington was 'doing something' about guns, nevermind the frenzied purchase rates of 'assault weapons' prior to the law taking effect, and the rather ease at which a non 'assault weapon' could be purchased and turned into an 'assault weapon.'
This is what I believe as well, that there really isn't much of an operational difference between a semi-automatic weapon and a fully automatic one when it comes to domestic individual self-defense/hunting/whatever. That's why these definitions are important in the discussion. Once you define the terms, then you can look at the argument more closely. If there's little real-world difference between semi- and fully-automatics, then what's the point of regulating fully-autos without regulating semi-autos? If one is in support of regulating or banning fully-automatic weapons but not semi-automatic weapons, what's the rationale behind making that distinction?
But it's not really an "infringement" unless you believe the Second Amendment is absolute, and only some ultra-fringe libertarians have ever believed that. An infringement would be to claim that banning all private possession of firearms could somehow be consistent with the right to "keep and bear arms," with "arms" suddenly no longer including firearms (as, e.g., Sam likes to argue here).
You don't think there's much difference between a fully automatic weapon and a semi-automatic weapon? Have a look.
One more personal note before bed: I grew up in a high-crime area, and we had a gun in the house. My brother and I found it when we were kids, and of course we played with it. We never loaded it — I was old enough to know better — but it's easy to see how a younger or less restrained child could have done serious damage with it. I don't want one in my house, but I have no problem with someone else wanting to own one.
My uncle owned a rifle and a shotgun, and would sometimes take us shooting out in the desert. I can't imagine using a rifle for home defense, especially in the city or suburbia. Big, bulky, cumbersome and dangerous. I just don't get the attraction.
For a rifle fired from the shoulder, full auto is a gimmick because the recoil makes it impossible to fire accurately. Soldiers are trained to use single-shot and three round burst mode because they are far more effective, and most shooters are more deadly on single shot mode.
If the goal of a ban is to make mass shooters less deadly, it would need to ban sale and ownership of all semiautomatic weapons. Hunters can keep their bolt action rifles and shot guns, and home defenders could keep their revolvers. Those weapons would still be deadly in the hands of a madman, but the effective rate of fire on those guns over an extended period of time would save lives.
I have no need for a gun, so I'd fully support such a ban in theory, but the practice of forcing the surrender of hundreds of millions of firearms would be challenging, to say the least.
meanwhile, evryone stands around looking dumb as angry and/or crazy people shoot up public places
just find that odd
and.........disappointing to state it mildly
Put a special tax on ammunition and use the proceeds for a buy back program.
But how many were killed by flat screen TVs and ping pongs?
Why would someone own a military-style rifle? :
By all means, lets defend to the death the right's of these people to have fun and look cool, to the exclusion of all consequences.
That's part of the cost, but what about the gun owners who refuse? If its 1 in 100 (and I suspect it would be higher even with stiff federal sentences), then you need to have ATF hunt down, raid, arrest , and prosecute a couple million holdouts. And then you have to house and feed them in federal prison for 5-10 years. And there will be a subset of those folks who will live out their Heston fantasy and take down some ATF agents in the process.
I'm not saying you shouldn't try just because its hard, but you need to be realistic about how difficult it would be.
You have a voluntary buy back program, outlaw new sales, and enact laws with stiff penalties for possession. It may take a generation or 2, but it could be done.
LaPierre: If we had armed guards at schools, isn't it possible that this wouldn't happen?
Gregory: Yes. And if we had limits on magazine clips, isn't possible fewer kids would have died?
LaPierre: No.
Here's how Joe answered the question about where to draw the line a month ago:
So [4609] represents some real kind of progress here. Unfortunately, pretty much everything else suggests this is just gonna keep going in circles.
Automatic fire is good for one thing; cover fire. No one aims at a target if they're on full auto. They're laying down cover fire while members of their squad maneuver for position.
Gregory whiffed on a few fat ones. He kept pressing the point that if ammunition clips were regulated, isn't it possible that Lanza would have killed fewer people? Wayne kept bringing up Columbine, that it happened during the assault weapons ban as proof that weapons bans don't work. The obvious follow up is "if the perpetrators of Columbine had semi automatic weapons with 31 round clips, isn't it possible they would have killed a lot more?"
The even more obvious follow up is "There was an armed guard on duty at Columbine."
A number of people have mentioned Pinker and his most recent book The Better Angels of Our Nature, in which he argues we've, on the whole, have become much less violence through the eons. This interview, about thirty minutes, serves as concise precis of his book and its thesis.
Many of us here will probably find Pinker's conclusions unsatisfying, since he advises we don't obsess about things like Newtown and don't get carried away by trying to enact extreme and bizarre solutions. He may come across to some of us and as too objective, too dispassionate, too level-headed, but remember he's not advocating we do nothing as to the larger problem of violence, just that we be smart about allocating resources for solutions.
That actually was brought up. Wayne responded that the ROE in place at the time forbade the guard from acting. His only duty was to call the police. I don't know if that's true, but it went unchallenged.
But the "assault weapons ban was in place and Columbine still occurred" is such nonsense that it demands a response. Imagine if someone said "We don't need to worry about nuclear proliferation. Al-Qaeda didn't have nukes and 911 still happened." It's like someone saying that global warming is a hoax because it's snowing in Boston in December.
I'm curious as to why. I'm more inclined to allow ONLY concealed carry in dense urban areas. It seems to me that a concealed weapon is more secured and I like the idea that you don't announce who has and does not have a gun.
It's not true. The guard on duty was a deputy sheriff and returned fire, but did not hit the shooters.
I am fascinated by conservatives, they are generally very bizarrely illogical outside of certain narrow fields. When talking about the US, it is always in danger of complete collapse and/or turning into an authoritarian tyranny (liberal hellhole). But when talk of the world comes around the US is great, wonderful and exceptional to the point that no other nation compares.
Taken together this view point - the US tottering on the precipice and still far better than the rest of the world would lead one to believe the rest of the world is terrible and likely getting worse. But of course that is nonsense as the world is in large part getting better and an ever increasing chunk of the world is a very fine place to be.
Very odd.
NOTE: As an aside I love how the fact that Joe thinks the US is ~15 times larger than Australia means nothing from Australia's history can be used to guide the US. Because every proof of concept, every statistical study has to be much larger than ... oh wait of course it doesn't.
Well, he was fired on and he returned fire (both missed). That happened before he called for backup. I've not seen anything about ROE in place the time, but obviously that all goes out the window when the assailant shoots at you.
Remember when you could buy memorabilia before movies?
I think the "Les Miz" people are really missing out by not selling white, blue and red hankies before the show.
You know he was thinking it...
The preferred abbreviation is Les Mis!
What I find curious is that every woman I've ever discussed Les Mis with identifies with, and given the chance would play, Eponine rather than Cosette. I suppose it is that gender's version of Charlie Kelly.
He would later say everything but the last sentence. And he's not completely wrong. Adam Lanza was hell bent on doing what he did. It's the purposeful stubbornness that makes LaPierre a clown. As Chuck Schumer said, his tonedeaf stonewalling will actually help get laws that he opposes passed.
So that's what they meant when they said they wanted to be part of the solution!
I think this sort of statement ignores just how often people make threats that are not converted into action. Lanza didn't get grenades, did he? Grenades would have made him more effective. There are barriers that can be put in place with policy that can help prevent actions like these from being more deadly.
It's possible that if the only gun he had available to him was a Winchester Repeater, he still would have killed that many kids, but it's much less likely.
Of course they do. Eponine has better songs.
I hadn't considered that angle!
Though to be fair Charlie Kelly has even better songs.
if he accepted cuts still less than what will happen the speaker might have the votes
gop folks need a legit story to offset being branded a traitor to the tax cause
i wrote a while back the president had to understand he was asking pols to break solemn promises to their voters and he needed to help them
i completely understand he has the upper hand but that doesn't mean he has to roll tr other guy completely
what's wrong with 4 trillion in cuts for the tax stuff he wants?
we are going there anyway
think the president is overplaying a strong hand
Firmly disagree. He's playing his strong hand just the way a strong hand should be played. It's the GOP that's botching the task of playing the weak hand.
the congressfolks who are standing in the way won't get punished by their voters
and does the president want to deal with the current speaker or someone is a true believer?
i suppor the speaker not eating a horrible deal.
Yeah but the GOP congressfolk who aren't standing in the way can and will get punished by their voters. Obama is supposed to weaken his stance even further for a small handful of congressman in whacko districts?
So a Republican thinks that the President is asking for too much in a deficit reduction deal?
Color me shocked.
He's already cut over a trillion. He offered over a trillion more in cuts. Republicans responded by claiming that interest savings aren't real (despite them using them in the past).
It's impossible to cut 4 trillion without severely impacting Medicare, Medicaid or defense. The president is firmly opposed to the first two being slashed.
i have acknowledged regularly that the gop was going to have eat sh$t
but this current is eat sh&t and have seconds and thirds
that is not going to happen
so it's on to january barring someone having a brainstorm
I'll hold off until at least early January. The hurdle now was getting enough Republican votes on what would be termed a tax increase in the weeks before the House for the Speaker. I suspect Obama had doubts that Boehner could get any deal at all through his caucus and that Boehner would understandably not take a deal without caucus support to the floor until the House re-elected him Speaker.
In January, after the tax increases automatically take effect and Boehner is re-elected, it's possible that the caucus will back a bill that solely reduces taxes or that Boehner would take a bill to the floor without caucus majority support.
The one thing I think Obama has to stand firm on is the debt ceiling nonsense. They should take that essentially off the table forever. If Congress passes budget and revenue plans, it is authorizing the debt to pay for that budget. There could be some kind of system built in so that if the numbers go too far beyond Congress' budget then Congress could get a chance to weigh in.
But the constant double-dipping is absurd and destructive to the country, and I would think so if it were a Republican president and a Democratic congress.
You can run deficits forever but you can't mess with your credit worthiness. That's just basic, the key thing that Hamilton learned from the Brits.
I could accept a weakish deal that takes that nonsense off the table but would reject a great deal that set up for another debt ceiling showdown in a couple of months.
because some of this psychological
once folks go over the edge and the world doesn't end the fear factor will not exist
market drops won't faze the hard core. heir voters hate wall street and have few investments
and the lame duck guys willing to deal will be gone
offset by more dems but enough?
I agree with you that we should have barriers. LaPierre's take on it is like Ray's "well then let's not do anything about it." That's obviously absurd.
I've been reading too much about the middle of the 19th century, but it seems like the Republican Party is destined to split into two pieces. And again that divide will largely be between the South on one side and everything else on the other.
Really, its brand confusion. There should be no reason for Tea Party and Republican Party to be interchangeable like it is, but it happened and now they have to deal with it. You certainly don't see this on the left like with the Democratic Party and the Green Party.
Some of us have been saying this for a few years now.
The Tea Party caucus of course is chaired by a Minnesotan, and includes reps from Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, New Mexico, Montana, Nebraska, Michigan, Indiana, inland California, and almost the entire Kansas delegation.
I mean, I don't get this.
The president's asks are for around 1.2 trillion in higher taxes, modest stimulative measures (extension of unemployment, payroll tax stuff), and de-fusing the debt ceiling. In exchange, he's willing to cut mandatory spending rather than defense, and is willing to exempt some amount of income between 250 and 400K from the tax hikes.
How is this eat #### and take seconds and thirds? Stimulative tax cuts are now anti-GOP agenda? Acting irresponsibly over the debt ceiling is a god-given right?
In no reasonable sense.
Just a weird strategy to employ right after a major election.
(emphasis added)
Which he most certainly does, of course. To fail to comprehend this basic point is to fail to understand what the combination of the fiscal cliff and the November election results mean for the GOP bargaining position.
What part of the concept "weak hand" do Boehner and the GOP not understand?
Maybe this is just a quibble, but I wish he had said, "I get that for winning the freaking election by five million freaking votes" instead.
I don't think there's any reasonable argument against the idea that the US is fundamentally different from every other nation in the world. It's not that nothing anyone else does matters or provides any guidance as to our own best policies, but that everything from our culture's emphasis on the individual, our diversity in matters of race, religion, and politics, our size, our system of government, and even our isolation from the rest of the world make it difficult (not impossible, but different) to compare policy.
This does not make us inherently better than any other country. There are certain values (some of which I am afraid are eroding) about speech and privacy that I think are superior to the alternatives, but we also have certain values (some of which I am afraid are being reinforced) that we could stand to change about our relative importance in the world. Our best hope is that we are in the last age of the superpower, and that we'll move to a world government of some sort rather than have a new superpower pass us, because I don't know how we would deal with being in second place.
merry holidays
so rest ye merry gentlemen may nothing you dismay
cuz there is always something to argue bout ever single day...
EDIT: and if I told you why, this post would have to get deleted, too.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main