Topix Chitown Regulars

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#79263 Jan 29, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
He despises anyone who doesn't share his views and demonizes them as un American. Typical narrow-minded liberal.
Sounds like a typical narrow-minded republican on these boards.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#79264 Jan 29, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
He despises anyone who doesn't share his views and demonizes them as un American.
I agree.

Since: Jul 10

Location hidden

#79265 Jan 29, 2013
Sam I Am wrote:
News Headline: "For sixth time in a week, man shot at a gun show."
OK. We've been trying it the National Rifle Association's way.
How long would it take to manufacture 315 million assault rifles?
Then we can all just have it out.
Thank goodness for the wisdom of the White House. Obviously, a ban on assault rifles will put an end to accidents with pistols and shotguns.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#79266 Jan 29, 2013
RedheadwGlasses wrote:
<quoted text>
Bullshit. Liar. Bullshit. Liar. Bullshit. Liar.
Kinda sounds like you're putting your fingers in your ears and yelling LA LA LA because the truth is too upsetting?
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#79267 Jan 29, 2013
Sgt__Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank goodness for the wisdom of the White House. Obviously, a ban on assault rifles will put an end to accidents with pistols and shotguns.
Its not the accidents we worry about, it is the intentional slaughters.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#79269 Jan 29, 2013
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not the accidents we worry about, it is the intentional slaughters.
If you worry about them, you should support measures that would actually prevent them. Not feel good measures, that can easily be worked around. As many of us have pointed out, banning assault rifles won't prevent massacres. You can do just as much damage in many settings with a couple of handguns and extra clips.

Saw an article today and it said only 4% of homicides are caused by rifles, 4% with shotguns, I think 8% with other weapons, and the rest are caused with handguns.

Although I appreciate the media sensationalism such events cause, are 20 lives lost in a single massacre with an assault rifle more valuable than 20 lives lost in individual hand gun shootings? Do the loved ones of those 20 individuals who die in individual shootings feel any different than the loved ones of the 20 who die in a single massacre.

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#79270 Jan 29, 2013
Which has absolutely no bearing on sams agenda. Assault style weapons must be banned, and every firearm accident from potato cannon to nuke only proves that point.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not the accidents we worry about, it is the intentional slaughters.

“bELieve”

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

#79271 Jan 29, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>So you're saying that being gay means you are a child molester? Tell us more. Gather round all. We're about to get some learnin dropped on us.
Times like this, you are so damn hot.

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

#79272 Jan 29, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you worry about them, you should support measures that would actually prevent them. Not feel good measures, that can easily be worked around. As many of us have pointed out, banning assault rifles won't prevent massacres. You can do just as much damage in many settings with a couple of handguns and extra clips.
Saw an article today and it said only 4% of homicides are caused by rifles, 4% with shotguns, I think 8% with other weapons, and the rest are caused with handguns.
Although I appreciate the media sensationalism such events cause, are 20 lives lost in a single massacre with an assault rifle more valuable than 20 lives lost in individual hand gun shootings? Do the loved ones of those 20 individuals who die in individual shootings feel any different than the loved ones of the 20 who die in a single massacre.
I think the only new gun laws that *might* make a difference is federally mandated waiting periods and background checks. But that’s a very iffy “might.” And along a federal mandate has to come with funding. Just this month, a MN sheriff discovered (I think via FB somehow) that a local “kid” had amassed a hell of an arsenal, and he’s not legally allowed to own guns – because he shot his mother to death when he was 14 and spent 10 years or so in psychiatric care and has been determined that he is a threat to others (but they released him anyway).

He bought those guns legally as far as, different entities weren’t sharing information, so when a sheriff’s office did a standard background check, they didn’t discover his mental health issues and violent background.

So even following the laws, he amassed a ton of guns, and no gun seller did anything wrong.

“The two baby belly, please!”

Since: Sep 09

Evanston IL

#79274 Jan 29, 2013
So I tried calling Dickie at work several times today; no answer. Just talked to him only to find out that he *had been * at work but left to go golfing. He didn't want to fess up but he finally did. It was almost like he was sleeping with another woman! He says pictures were taken of him on the course...

That's fine. I'm satisfied with the fact that he got drenched twice.

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#79275 Jan 29, 2013
edogxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Kinda sounds like you're putting your fingers in your ears and yelling LA LA LA because the truth is too upsetting?
What color is the sky on the planet where you live?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#79276 Jan 29, 2013
Why fire hydrant red of course!
Mimi Seattle wrote:
<quoted text>
What color is the sky on the planet where you live?

“What's it to ya?”

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#79277 Jan 29, 2013
RACE wrote:
Why fire hydrant red of course!
<quoted text>
Ha!
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#79278 Jan 29, 2013
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you worry about them, you should support measures that would actually prevent them. Not feel good measures, that can easily be worked around. As many of us have pointed out, banning assault rifles won't prevent massacres. You can do just as much damage in many settings with a couple of handguns and extra clips.
Saw an article today and it said only 4% of homicides are caused by rifles, 4% with shotguns, I think 8% with other weapons, and the rest are caused with handguns.
Although I appreciate the media sensationalism such events cause, are 20 lives lost in a single massacre with an assault rifle more valuable than 20 lives lost in individual hand gun shootings? Do the loved ones of those 20 individuals who die in individual shootings feel any different than the loved ones of the 20 who die in a single massacre.
My notion of effective measures would probably provoke as much rhetoric as the assault rifle proposals.

I would approach it from the mental health standpoint. Many states have a sexually violent offender statute that allows a psychiatric assessment of someone to predict whether they will be sexual predators in teh future and if teh psychatrists find that they have reason to make that prediction, teh offendeto-be is civilly committed, potentially for life. The process has passed Constututional muster so I know it works.

Move that approach out of the sexual realm. Identify those people who are potentially violent, put them through the same predictive screening process and commit them. Edog and Angela can have their guns; the people who are predictably vooent are taken out.

But selling the notion that we would lock people up because of something they might do would be harder than prying teh guns from someone's cold dead hands.

OTOH, given teh information currently published about Adam Lanza, it would not have prevented SandyHook unlessa psychiatrist had seen him and flagged him for screening. Anyway, his parents were rich. They would have bought his way out.

/s/ Yours Anachronistically and Cynically,

Pelly

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#79279 Jan 29, 2013
Thank you for admitting that you cant predict and stop crazy, so the notion of creating rules that only effect the sane normal is of no practical use at all.
PEllen wrote:
<quoted text>
My notion of effective measures would probably provoke as much rhetoric as the assault rifle proposals.
I would approach it from the mental health standpoint. Many states have a sexually violent offender statute that allows a psychiatric assessment of someone to predict whether they will be sexual predators in teh future and if teh psychatrists find that they have reason to make that prediction, teh offendeto-be is civilly committed, potentially for life. The process has passed Constututional muster so I know it works.
Move that approach out of the sexual realm. Identify those people who are potentially violent, put them through the same predictive screening process and commit them. Edog and Angela can have their guns; the people who are predictably vooent are taken out.
But selling the notion that we would lock people up because of something they might do would be harder than prying teh guns from someone's cold dead hands.
OTOH, given teh information currently published about Adam Lanza, it would not have prevented SandyHook unlessa psychiatrist had seen him and flagged him for screening. Anyway, his parents were rich. They would have bought his way out.
/s/ Yours Anachronistically and Cynically,
Pelly
PEllen

Chicago, IL

#79280 Jan 29, 2013
RACE wrote:
Thank you for admitting that you cant predict and stop crazy, so the notion of creating rules that only effect the sane normal is of no practical use at all.
<quoted text>
I think you can predict crazy and you can stop them, but the method, means and potential for abuse is so great that it is impractical.

One of the side ads on the NYTimes website is for a play about 2 women who were institutionalized for being unwed mothers in the 1920's. Any predictive modeling and remval from society has to be seen with that as a context.

“I Am Mine”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#79281 Jan 29, 2013
RACE wrote:
Why fire hydrant red of course!
<quoted text>
In his world, he and all the smart people want to paint it red, but all those damn liberals have painted it blue and ruined everyting.

“reign in blood”

Since: May 09

Wilmington, IL

#79282 Jan 29, 2013
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>In his world, he and all the smart people want to paint it red, but all those damn liberals have painted it blue and ruined everyting.
I was just about to say the same thing! Maybe you're not half smart after all!?

“A Programmer is not in IT!”

Since: Feb 09

Neda, stay with me! Charlie

#79283 Jan 29, 2013
This is what happens when you let Guinea pigs marry.
Mister Tonka wrote:
<quoted text>In his world, he and all the smart people want to paint it red, but all those damn liberals have painted it blue and ruined everyting.

Since: Mar 09

West Palm Beach, FL

#79284 Jan 29, 2013
Overheard in the lobby of my building:

Random guy talking to the security guard: "notre dame football players are smarter than players from other schools."

Me, thinking: "yeah, that's why they always lose."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min Coffee Party 194,758
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 16 min Nostrilis Waxmoron 1,264,709
Word (Dec '08) 32 min RACE 5,384
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 33 min RACE 6,261
Dova J Thomas your daughter Amber is looking fo... 3 hr Dawn B 1
Best value kit'chens of europe reviews 9 hr selamet 1
Ask Amy August 3 10 hr mrs gladys kravitz 9
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages