LongJim

46 more shot in Chicago. Just another typical weekend in the "gun-free" city. Gun Control Works...

I have no idea, not having seen UNT play yet. My mind says 27-24 UNT. That's a total wild guess. I do know one thing--shutting down Davis' as a running threat is the key. I think if he's held under 50 yards rushing, UNT wins by 10.

First impressions of UTSA--fast, very physical, and their tight end is going to be a handful.

Looks to me like UTSA is 0-1. But yeah, moral victories are ok for UNT's rivals, I guess.

SAVE WILLIS!!

Yeah, it's no different than a "hey, hold my beer..." moment of stupidity. But, because the fool was fiddling with a gun rather than doing something like this: http://nypost.com/2015/07/08/texas-man-dead-after-shooting-fireworks-from-chest/ ...it gets a few extra hysterical comments.

LongAndThickJim doesn't flow as well...

Girth is more important.

Unfortunately. I just don't see any benefit to doubling down on the legislation. IMO, it's kicking the can down the road, because folks don't really want to address the real causes of the behavior.

Here's the Guardian's data (from 2012) on homicides by firearms as a percentage of all homicides. Yes, the US leads in the percentage of gun ownership to population. But guess what? The US is not even in the top 20 when homicides by firearms are tabulated as a percentage of all murders. We come in at 28, according to this data: http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list Those above the US are affected by social issues to a much greater degree, as well. Other means? Yes they are. Here's another site with some data that might be useful, including what countries use what "mechanism" the most to off each other. For example, if you live in Austria, you're more likely to be stabbed to death or killed with the dreaded "other". http://www.unodc.org/gsh/en/data.html

Good post. The following is my opinion only, and I'm not going to try to support it with facts. It's simply conjecture. I think there are two basic issues that have to be faced. One, and this is a cliché and many will disagree, but lunatics are going to kill people. That's not going to go away. There has to be a way to keep their effect on the populace to a minimum, and I'm not sure what the solution to that is. I truly feel that more restrictive gun laws are essentially going to be ineffective, because it doesn't address the root of the problem, which is mental illness, and treatment of it. Personally, I feel that the situation with nuts committing blaze of glory stuff is much less of a concern than the real issue, which is increased crime due to poverty, unemployment, and cultural effects on the population. If people paid attention, they would realize that the big cities--particularly in places like Detroit, Chicago, and LA--have had homicide rates at times approaching 1-2 PER DAY. As a point of reference, I spent a month working in Dearborn MI in 1987. During that time, I read the Free Press daily, since it was delivered to the hotel room where I was staying. People were murdered in Detroit at a rate that was over 2 per day. IIRC, the paper published a running, up-to-the-day total for the year. At that time, I'm pretty sure the total was over 650. Now, why was that? Well, let's take a look back in time: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/15/us/urban-homicide-rates-in-us-up-sharply-in-1986.html Again, I don't want to go into a sermon on this, but the above spells out the real issues. Note that 30 years have elapsed, and we're pretty much doing the same old, same old. Factors? Drugs, decay, and criminal activity, same as now. Note also that there's actually probably been a bit of a decrease in killings. Isn't that great??(?) As if a couple hundred here or there can be counted as improvement. Point is--restrictive gun laws aren't going to make any difference here either, because they are being used by criminals who have no problem obtaining them illegally, not by Joe Blow going out to purchase a handgun for home defense or farting around at the gun range. That demographic will be the one affected by more restrictive gun laws, not the evildoers. EDIT: And to address your question--no, I don't believe there's a real interest in solving the problem "with guns" by directing forces to address the mental health issue. If there were interest, it would be happening already.

And here's another article about why folks are killing each other in the big cities. Not because guns. Because of factors noted earlier in this thread. Note also that Chicago--possessing some of the most heavy gun restrictions in the US--is included in the article. Note also that overarching factors are poverty, gang activity, unemployment, and recidivism. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/murder-rates-rising-sharply-in-many-us-cities/ar-AAdOven But again, the actual facts are much less hysterical than CONTROL THE GUNS, even though the effect of those hindered by their social issues and their subsequent violent actions are much more devastating than the actions of mental defectives.

I have no idea. Depends on who shows up at receiver, QB, OL and DL. Right now, I guessing 5-7. Can't get DMN blog to accept my post.

Probably the best brush gun there is.

Here's what happened in neighborhoods in Detroit. 33 shot over the weekend. No hysteria there, though. Why? Criminals Commit Crime If people--particularly young males--don't have role models, don't have constructive or useful occupations, or have mental or chemical issues, they will get into trouble, and they will cause trouble in order to get what they want, because they see no other way--or no easier way--to do it. That's always the way it has been, and that's always the way it will be, until those root causes are corrected.

I just read through this thread, and agree with Alonzo on every point. Thanks Alonzo.

Good post, and I agree. Vast majority of these mass shootings happened because of disturbed individuals, which I alluded to earlier. Again--to me--it's addressing the root cause of the violence--not the instrument delivering violence.

Statistics show that "gun-related deaths" are overwhelmingly committed while the killer is committing a crime or killing themselves. That is, robbing, raping, invading, selling illicit substances, or engaged in gang or criminal activity, or committing suicide. A MUCH smaller percentage of deaths occur simply due to outright murder with no other motive. I believe that the crime component has increased because of changes in our culture, our living arrangements, and other factors. Semi-automatic weapons have been around since the early/mid 19th century. And then, just as now, most gun deaths were caused during commission of a crime, not due to some waste of flesh deciding to take out innocents. People don't die from guns because guns. They get killed by guns because the killer wants something you have/Maslow's hierarchy of needs, because they want to off themselves quickly and efficiently, or because they are mentally disturbed--like the example of biological waste that is the subject of this thread. I do not, however, want to be deprived of the right to protect myself from these vermin that prey on others with at least semi-equal firepower--since they have no problem obtaining guns quickly, see Chicago and California--nor do I agree with those wishing to deprive me of my liberties because it's "for the greater good". I believe doing that does not address the issues causing the majority of "gun-related deaths" in the first place. The first thing that will happen with these types of prohibitive laws will be illegal smuggling, and more crime. But, I will--still--certainly listen to those that want to spell out specifics of their plan to make all of those issues go away with stricter gun laws.

There are already laws in place that do this. What would the new law look like that would accomplish the goal?

How would giving up your .40 significantly reduce gun-related homicides?

There are laws in place already that do nothing to deter gun violence in many cities in the US. Deranged people are not the majority of people killing others with guns. The overwhelming majority of homicides with guns happen in the commission of another crime--by criminals--such as robbery, gang activity, or drug deals, not by a deranged individual. Maybe I missed somewhere on the board where someone detailed their plan for repealing the 2nd amendment or what the law would be for "responsible" "acceptable" gun ownership? Maybe this is a better question, and it's rhetorical: I own an antique Colt New Service .45 LC and an early 1930's S&W .38 Special. What reason can you use to convince me you are justified in taking them away from me?

Relax, man. I'm not arguing anything. I'm stating a fact. Your opposition to legal gun ownership was noted a long time ago around here. I don't agree with it, but that's why we live in the U.S.A.

Deranged people bent on killing, will kill. Period.

Isn't Mac Engel a Jayhawk?