Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) Again, you and I are anecdotes. I played an a**load of Goldeneye myself and can't stand guns...but that's an anecdote. Let's just say that, in the hypothetical, you found that banning a certain type of video game and movie decreased these type of attacks by 90%. You and I would still be anecdotes, but the results could be incredibly striking for a certain type of individual with a real chance of carrying out something like this. Now, that data doesn't exist, so I'm just hoping to illustrate the flaw in the anecdotal argument. If there was data saying it would work, I would listen. Right. But we are sane. I played Grand Theft Auto, but I never carjacked anyone, killed people with said car, or slapped a b****, either.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) That's a leap. Who has a few drinks and think "I want to kill people tonight"? They just think they're ok enough to drive safely home. I'm not talking about that guy. I'm talking about the dude that's fall down drunk after 20 drinks, not 2. And routinely drinks and drives. These are the people that routinely kill people with their vehicles, to the point they've invented a term for it, vehicular manslaughter/homocide. Those people cause most drunk driving accidents/fatalities, to the tune of thousands upon thousands per year. And their regulations, fines, and sentences are often less than that of a person who uses a gun illegally.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:45 PM) Indeed. I totally bought my Volvo to kill people who try to harm me and my family. In fact, after work today I'll be joining my uncle at the driving range where we get to drive into cardboard cutouts of people to practice our technique to intentionally kill people with our cars. And thank goodness our master bedroom is huge. I keep my car idling next to my bed so that I can run over any home intruder who dares enter my home. While I understand your condescension, it ignores the argument I posed. If you buy that Volvo, and drink and drive as a routine, ignoring the law, IMO, it IS your intention to kill people, whether they're attacking your family or not.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:38 PM) Are you implying that I think newspapers or the media are smart? Because that would be a faulty premise. Taking away guns entirely is most likely not possible, so its a waste of time to argue about it, and a waste of time for that to be proposed as a solution. Which is why its frustrating to discuss, because certain people can not separate "gun regulation" from "guns being completely banned" when they are 2 separate things. Id die of joy if they allowed drugs to be regulated, because thats not banned and it means all I have to do is follow the rules and I get what I want. Why is that so hard? Why do pro-gun people always have to make it some outlandish "I wont be able to have a gun ever"? The issue comes from how it's currently handled by the "law". These restrictions are often argued because they're not on a level playing field. For example, Chicago has far more restrictions than a neighboring suburb when it comes to purchasing, registering and owning. This type of enforcement doesn't work well...and it leaves too much room for argument. This has to be handled federally, across the board, across all 50 states or the argument will never end. I'm not a fan of guns...never have been. But the idea that people a few blocks away from me are able to have weapons I'm not allowed to have seems unfair...even for a person that has no use for such weapons. This is one of the HUGE problem areas that needs to be addressed.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:29 PM) Again, how many people were intentionally killed by guns vs being intentionally killed by cars last year? That depends on how you want to frame this... I'd say we should include drunk driving as intentional uses of a car as a weapon, while it may not be their "intention", the fact they get in their car while intoxicated makes it exactly that. And if we include that, I bet there are far more of such accidents with cars than with guns. I also understand I'm stretching here to make an argument, but I think it's valid considering drunk drivers that kill people will get convicted of manslaughter.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 03:21 PM) Hmm what world is this? We blame drugs, we blame video games, we blame rap, we blame no religion in the classroom, we blame prostitutes, we blame gambling, we blame tv. Since when we do we blame the person, all Ive ever seen is blaming everyone else. Everything is now an "addiction", tomorrow well have "gun addicts" and we cant blame them because "they are addicted to guns and its a disease." I seriously dont know what world you are in where people ever take the blame. I think in his post he's saying exactly that...it's peoples fault, not the objects fault. And I absolutely despise that addiction is a disease excuse. People don't willingly choose to get cancer, or lupus, or the swine flu. But when it comes to addiction, they absolutely did choose at some point.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:56 PM) So back to the question in the title of this thread? Is it time to revisit the 2nd amendment? For those who've been saying no, is there any scenario at all where you would consider doing so? I think it's worth revisiting serious FEDERAL restrictions, laws and enforced penalties on gun use/ownership. The idea of them ever doing something to an amendment in the bill of rights seems like a pipe dream at best...

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:52 PM) YEah, again, I can see why you'd be passionate about the issue. But let's say 6 bangers bust into your house with guns. If you are unarmed, we hope the worst is they steal some s***, maybe smack you with the gun, and leave. Worst case, everyone dead. Let's say these 6 bangers bust into your house and you draw a gun. I think the chances of everyone being killed raise substantially. That's a pretty victim way of looking at things, but whatever. If some f***bags break into my house, I'm going to go down swinging, stabbing, bashing or shooting...to my last dying breath, I'd refuse to accept the idea that "hoping and praying" these people that obviously have no use for the law will "allow me or my family to live". Until they do it to the next family, because people keep letting them get away with it...eventually someone innocents dying. The odds of you dying in that situation are already raised substantially, so at that point, f*** it...and f*** them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:43 PM) And I note again the complete lack of consideration of any other way that gun could be used. Never a consideration of an accident, or a suicide, or shooting the wrong person. The only thing that matters is the vigilante fantasy. It's strictly for home defense. Not to carry around, not for any other purpose. Yes, the intention of that kind of weapon is to kill. Period. Like Rambo.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 02:32 PM) I was going to edit that after that was when I got my handguns and rifle, realizing that my shotgun wasn't going to do much until they got closer. I have had that gun since I was 10. I still got shot at, and a few more steps I was opening fire. That is why you alternate buckshot and slugs in a home defense shotgun -- the slugs can easily travel more than the distance of your house. And with 2 shots at that distance, you're going to kill whatever you were shooting at with a 12 gauge, even a 16. The biggest advantage of a shutgun in the home is you dont have to have very good aim...being woken up in the middle of the night, in the dark, during a home break in, getting your gun and loading it can be bad enough...now having to aim when your wits are dulled gives them about the same odds as it gives you. If you need to shoot at that kind of distance, you either live in a mansion, or you're doing something else entirely.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 01:00 PM) LOL, I actually do that too. I also keep a steel door stopper near my front door in case anyone tries to break my bulletproof lock. Seriously, its bulletproof http://www.sunnectlock.com/ I have one, too...but the reality is that the door frame is the weak point on any deadbolt. You don't actually try to pick or crack a dead bolt...you kick the door off the frame...it's actually quite easy to do. If you have a heavy hammer (smaller than a sledge) it'll take a few seconds to do it. It'll make noise...but I assume people that are breaking into houses don't much care for the most part.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:29 PM) Maybe in other states, but Illinois has a very solid public school system. Unless you include Chicago in that.

QUOTE (Reddy @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 08:49 AM) i can see where you might draw that conclusion, because it really does have that feel to it, but strangely enough in the times we've talked we've actually been completely honest with each other. ...or so you think. I'm not saying I know one way or another...but from the sound of it...this girl could convince you the sky is green on a bright sunny day, and you'd not only believe her...but it'd actually be green when you looked at it. By and large, I think your compromised by your undying love for this girl. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing...it happens to all of us...it has too. This is coming down to exactly what I said it would come down too...the places in life you both happen to be, right now, are in conflict. The only things you can do is 1) move on, or 2) wait for her to get there.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:13 PM) Im trying to be less cynical. But if Americans really started to care and wanted to make changes, Congressman would have to either go for the ride or they would lose their seats. Most candidates dont tell people what to think, they just do what they think people will like the most. I agree...but IMO, most people are so disenfranchised they don't care anymore. Not to mention the many that have very short attention spans and when re-election time comes around they've largely forgotten that one time their congressperson did something publicly that angered them. Such is reality in a society driven by sensationalism and reality tv.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:09 PM) It has to start somewhere. Congressman just do what people tell them. It is our responsibility to effectuate change. That is our social contract. But do they really? I think after they're elected, they mostly do what they want, and on a select few issues they may get called out by their constituents when it comes to them doing something their people didn't want. But more often then not, when it comes to knee-jerk reaction, they get away with a LOT because people are too busy fighting to notice.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 12:03 PM) Well everything is vague when its in the brainstorm stage. I can make things as specific as you want. Gun Ownership Act of 2012 1) All guns must be registered yearly. 2) All guns must be purchased legally. 3) All guns must be kept in a locked approved container. Now onto the fun ones: 4) All guns must be reported missing within 24 hours of detection. 5) All gun owners with missing guns must file a police report 6) All gun owners with missing guns must allow the police to search their premises. 7) All gun owners who lose more than 1 gun in a 5 year span will have their license to own guns permanently revoked. Failure to follow any of the above listed laws will result in a minimum of X and a maximum of the equivalent sentence of the crime commissioned by the gun. Sincerely, Stalin WE can make sense here all day long...however, WE aren't the ones that implement these laws. The same people who implemented the Patriot Act are.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:57 AM) This is premised on the fact that they did not store their weapons legally, which means that their actions were illegal, aka criminal. I thought you kept saying that there was no way to enforce people keeping their guns properly. So it clearly can be done. Whether or not we want it to be done, is a different argument. But that is where the argument should be, why do we not want people to have to lock guns up. Why do we want people to be able to easily transfer weapons to other people. Why do these have to be allowed? And drug dealer liability act wont make much sense if drugs were legalized. The problem with a lot of that is a locked up gun is a useless gun when you have mere seconds to react to the armed robber that just kicked your front door in and started firing off rounds. I think it'd be more responsible if the gun was stolen that you immediately report it as such. If we are going to implement laws, we need to make them effective. Forcing people who own guns to render them useless for the intention of protection isn't effective legislation.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:57 AM) You think that requiring gun ownership to be more responsible is "knee-jerk?" I think it's vague, which is the very point I was highlighting. Being more responsible could mean a whole swath of things...vagueness of a law/act and ineffective practices implemented in reaction to this is what we need to avoid.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:54 AM) I thought I already made that pretty clear. Sorry, I did not see that post...I kind of had to skip some when I rejoined here.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:46 AM) If you want to follow the Constitution, and maintain a "well-regulated militia;" then, one weekend a month, every gun owner should be required to attend a training course in order to be "regulated." Make gun owners have to work to prove that they are responsible. ...in response to a tragic situation, for the safety of all of us, we should also implement the patriot act, allow warrentless wiretapping and spying of citizens, and indefinite detention of anyone accused, without proof, of a plethora of vaguely described situations, too. What we need to do is think this through, be calm, and implement changes that will make an actual difference...not implement changes with knee-jerk reaction that do nothing but detain or inconvenience people with no actual results. For a good example of this, consider body scanners at airports...which have been proven ineffective...yet we use them anyway, all in the name of safety.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:40 AM) You get your gun(s) stolen and it's used in a crime, you get a warning. Your gun(s) get stolen a 2nd time and you lose your privilege to own guns. Also, if you fail to report your gun stolen and it's used in a crime, you automatically get a misdemeanor charge and 30 days in jail. I agree with something like this more than I'd agree with someone who took every precaution and it happens anyway, and them being thrown in jail for a murder they didn't commit. Some of these suggestions are on the verge of going way too far, which is exactly what I said would happen when people suggest laws or legislation when in a state of emotional response.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:37 AM) like requiring that it be stored in a locked safe Right. But what he said was no matter what, they're responsible...which I don't agree with. That's the same as lending your car to someone (legally), they are license, insured and of age, them killing someone on accident and then you being held accountable...it's just not right. I think, as with anything, it's about responsibility, and if you meet those standards, you shouldn't be held accountable.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 11:34 AM) If a gun you bought or owned is used in a crime, you go to jail for the period of the crime. You act like we cant make rules to stop this. We can make them, it just would require people to really man up about responsibility. To use something close to my heart. If they passed a law legalizing all drugs, I would be okay with a law that stated I was responsible for the actions of anyone who I gave drugs to, or who stole them from me. Its called taking personal responsibility. Um, no. That's not about taking responsibility. You can be 100% responsible and have your weapon stolen somehow. I don't agree with blaming that person if they took every precaution against it, but it happened anyway.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Dec 17, 2012 -> 09:52 AM) Complete understatement. Comcast has no rhyme or reason to how they bill you. It's a shell game that you MUST play with them if you want to keep your bill low. Take a look at your bill, call them up, question them, get a 6 month discount, repeat. I don't get this...my bill doesn't change unless I add or remove services.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Dec 16, 2012 -> 03:47 PM) If you are dealing with DSL, then yes, it's dependent on how close you are to the Central Office. If we are talking about UVerse, which I thought we were, your proximity to the node is what your speeds are dependent on, not to the Central Office. You also mentioned wireless earlier, which is not what we're talking about. We're talking about home phone, internet and tv. Uverse has great TV, especially for the price. It's very easy to get on their promos as long as you're current on your bill. They have so many HD options. Their HD is compressed a little more heavily than others unfortunately, but it's nowhere as bad as people used to make it seem. Their internet is good if you're close to the node and you're not doing some heavy downloading. The reason being is that 75% of the line is being used for Uverse TV(IPTV), and the other problem is there is no fiber to the house. It is great though in that you're not sharing your connection with others like Comcast, which means there are no peak times or specific times of the day where the internet is slower than an earlier part of the day. ATT also has been a lot more stable than Comcast for me. I've had Comcast in three different places. I've had UVerse in two. Last, but not least, Comcast's monthly charges are not consistent month to month, even if you don't change up your service. ATT is. I look at my bill every month and everything is the exact same as the month before. It's refreshing to see that. My Comcast bill is the exact same every month...so not sure where or why you're getting that. And Uverse internet is somewhat glorified DSL, it's still copper to your house, which is the bottleneck. And location to a CO and location to a node are technically no different, well, they are but you get what I mean...it's still about location and distance that make a huge difference. There is only so much available bandwidth over copper...and if they're using 75% of it for television data, the rest of the pipe is saturated and slow.