Are you the Ultimate Red Sox Fan? Enter your photo in our contest and you could win fan-tastic prizes.
Shot by Dan
“Think left and think right and think low and think high. Oh, the thinks you can think up if only you try!”
View our commenting policy and standards | Commenting FAQ | Report a problem
Glad VT won yesterday. It wasn’t pretty and it wasn’t good but it’s always important to beat your instate rival. While it’s nice to go to a bowl IMHO the 20 year consecutive streak is no longer a significant milestone. I counted 34 bowl games and the fact that a mediocre team like VT can get in one with a 6-6 record is quite unremarkable.
“…the fact that a mediocre team like VT can get in one with a 6-6 record is quite unremarkable.”
Bowls are all about money.
….VT has had 20 straight years of bowls…you can hardly call that mediocre.
Scott, I am a fan of Virginia football, thus I support VT, UVA, and all other Virginia teams. Credit is due to the Hokies. Even in today’s watered down bowl scheme, a 20-year run of national relevance is impressive.
A sports guy on NPR’s Morning Edition, has been saying that for years, John Wilburn. He says it’s all about the teams that can bring in the fans and their money.
So what crummy and inconsequential bowl game are the 6-6 Hokies destined to be invited to? Anybody have any ideas?
Dan, ESPN projects VT vs. USC in the Sun Bowl. As others have suggested, it’s all about the money. VT travels very well and has national name recognition.
So how do you feel about Maryland selling its soul for entry into the Big 10?
6.”So what crummy and inconsequential bowl game are the 6-6 Hokies destined to be invited to? Anybody have any ideas?”
Good chance they’ll get the Music City Bowl in Nashville. The Chick-fil-A Peach Bowl is a fair chance too. It’s all about how well a team’s fans travel and what the bowl’s ticket sales will be. With large spread-out alumni bases, Tech usually gets good bowl assignments. I’d like to see either of those as I have family in both cities and would be a good excuse for a trip either direction.
For those of you who can’t read John Wilburn’s avatar, it says, “GUNS SAVE LIVES.”
And to that one I would post a question: pro-gunners always have hotly debated the gun-controllers’ contention that “GUNS KILL.”
“Guns don’t kill!” the gunners argue back. “People kill!”
Well, if that is true, isn’t it also true that guns DON’T save lives?
Jeff Doto, I didn’t call 20 years of going to a bowl mediocre, I called the 2012 team mediocre. The bowl streak speaks to the team’s consistency. Don’t get me wrong, I am glad they’re going, but over half the D I teams are going to a bowl so just squeaking in with a 6-6 record this year is nothing to crow about. I wish them the best and wherever they go, I’ll be watching. I went to the game and then just finished watching it again and I’m left scratching my head over London’s strange call on the fake FG and the non use of his TO’s.
“9.For those of you who can’t read John Wilburn’s avatar, it says, “GUNS SAVE LIVES.””
It’s like the stickers VCDL gives out at events. A gun cannot kill without a person operating it, but a holstered gun that makes a would-be killer understandably change his mind about murdering someone, just by the sight of it, can save one’s life.
“Guns don’t kill!” the gunners argue back. “People kill!”
Well, if that is true, isn’t it also true that guns DON’T save lives?
Comment by Dan Casey — November 25, 2012 @ 11:07 am
If I am a police officer and I point a gun at a person, with a deadly weapon, who is about to do harm and the person puts down his or her weapon, have I possibly just saved a life? If I do the same as a private citizen in my own home, haven’t I potentially just saved a life?
That being said, I strongly believe that the lives lost to easy handgun and assault rifle access far outweighs the lives potentially saved by guns. Because a person with a gun can kill from a distance, even if that distance is 5-10 yards, they are far more likely to do so than if faced with the prospect of killing someone up close. It is, in my opinion, somewhat the same as folks on this blog saying things in relative anonymity that they would never say face-to-face.
Both sides of this argument reside at the extremes. A reasoned middle ground will serve us all better than the current debate.
dano, in my humble opinion, your question falls under the very low bar for being in the category of “dumb”.
which house do you think stands a greater chance of being invaded…one in which the invader thinks has a higher probability of having a gun inside, or a house in which the invader thinks has a lower probability of having a gun inside?
chances are, the house in which the invader believes has a greater chance of having a gun inside will likely avoid being invaded…, and therefor the invader stands a better chance of not being killed by chosing to invade the house in which he/she thinks has a greater likelyhood of not having a gun inside.
“I’m left scratching my head over London’s strange call on the fake FG and the non use of his TO’s.”
No kidding. In a close game with all kinds of time left, I couldn’t see taking the risk. Of course, had it payed off, no one would have cared or criticized. And that icing the kicker strategy is something you do when you have timeouts left over, not something you save them for. Both London and Stinespring may be looking for a job soon.
“That being said, I strongly believe that the lives lost to easy handgun and assault rifle access far outweighs the lives potentially saved by guns. Because a person with a gun can kill from a distance, even if that distance is 5-10 yards, they are far more likely to do so than if faced with the prospect of killing someone up close.”
This is contradictory, nosaj. It’s the hunting rifle that would serve a long-distance situation, not the “assault rifle”. Besides, most murders are not sniper-style. I see no reason to make solutions in search of problems.
Firstly, to Mr Whitaker’s defense, he said a mediocre TEAM, not a mediocre PROGRAM. Anyone can have a bad year. Fair enough?
Secondly, Dan, what in the WORLD does John’s avatar have to do with the Hokie/bowl game thread? Do we HAVE to have yet another argument about guns?
Lastly to what John said: “a holstered gun that makes a would-be (insert your favorite criminal offense here) understandably change his mind about (insert your favorite criminal action here) someone, just by the sight of it, can save one’s life.”
I can speak to this PERSONALLY. I live in a…oh let’s call it… “disadvantaged” part of town. Now, I never carry cash, unless there is a gun show in town. One Th night, about two years ago now, I stopped at the ATM to get cash for the show. It was about this time of year, because it was already dark around 5:30. I had entered my pin and amount needed, and I was standing with my back to the ATM. What do I see? Two fellows walking down the rain gutter from my left. As they reach the bank property, they step out of the rain gutter, and up onto the grass, headed directly toward me. I briefly turned back to face the ATM, the nickel plated revolver on my right hip coming into their view. By the time I could turn back around, they had made a 90 degree turn right back into the street, and walked briskly past.
I managed to avert trouble without a word, without a shot, without drawing, without even TOUCHING my gun. This is the situation EVERY gun owner hopes for. No one wants bloodshed, except criminals and lunatics. John is neither. I am neither. 99.999% of gun owners are neither, 100% of legitimate owners.
Now, we were talking about bowl games, I believe?
“Secondly, Dan, what in the WORLD does John’s avatar have to do with the Hokie/bowl game thread? Do we HAVE to have yet another argument about guns?”
Robert Sadtler, it’s an OPEN thread, buddy. You can raise any point you want (me, too).
Glad you didn’t get robbed at the ATM. You’re free to draw any conclusions you want from the ATM incident, but as you have described that event, your assumptions that you were about to get robbed are just that — assumptions.
And even if was assume they’re accurate, what we could definitely conclude is that the gun saved you money. It’s highly unlikely it saved your life. I think Dave Hicks would actually back me up on this one.
Of course it’s an assumption. It’s all assumptions until someone acts, or doesn’t. I could have assumed that they were collecting for the March of Dimes. Here’s my assumption: two guys in hoodies (I forgot that detail, didn’t I? My bad.)come strolling up off the street. The only move I make is to turn my body. Let me be clear, I specifically kept the hand AWAY from the gun. I didn’t want to appear threatening if they were legit. I maintain that if they were, they would have assumed that I was an off duty or some such thing and come up to wait their turn. The fact that they made a beeline toward me and bolted at the mere PRESENCE of a gun tells me that they were up to no good. An assumption? Sure. But in April of 2007, people assumed that Tech was a safe place. Movie goers assumed that a “no guns” sign would assure them a safe Batman premier. You make your assumptions. I’ll make mine.
As for it being an open thread, touche. Not a particularly smooth segue, though. I’m just saying.
If one of those guys brandished a knife at you, and said, “give me your money” and then saw your gun and split, then I would say it’s no assumption that your gun saved your money. I’d say that was a justifiable conclusion based on the events. But that’s not how it went down.
Belk Bowl in Charlotte.
Ah, guns. As someone who has had two cousins die in a murder suicide, no guns for me, thank you very much. If the rest of feel the need, well that’s your business.
“I could have assumed that they were collecting for the March of Dimes.”
“Here’s my assumption: two guys in hoodies”
Do you realize what this is going to start?
“If one of those guys brandished a knife at you, and said, “give me your money” and then saw your gun and split, then I would say it’s no assumption that your gun saved your money.”
The guy threatened you with a knife! The knife was not there for effect, it was there to tell you “I am going to cause you grievous harm or death; you MIGHT spare yourself if you give it to me.” No thanks! I’ll not give someone who threatens to slash me the benefit of good faith that he will put the knife away. What if the guy wants your daughter, Dan? Do you give her over and say “Don’t hurt me”? That gun would be a serious problem solver at that point. Would you agree with this?
21.”Ah, guns. As someone who has had two cousins die in a murder suicide, no guns for me, thank you very much. If the rest of feel the need, well that’s your business.”
I’m sorry for your loss, but there is logic as to why you feel that way. So you would rather be next than be able to have a say and better control your own fate? I’ve said before and I’ll repeat now: There is no moral superiority in being wilfully unprepared.
Having never even heard of the Belk Bowl, I’d say it’s not a prestigious bowl. I’d say with Tech’s record this season, it would be a good fit.
Is Robert Sadtler making an assumption that the way others use a gun in their own perceived defense couldn’t make him less safe in that theater?
#3 Having trouble reading again, Dolto?
It would be difficult to read a button or sticker that said, “Guns in the hands of the law abiding can save lives that would be lost to the armed criminal, were the victim disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment.”
Are you alleging easy access to a true military assault rifle or to the lookalikes defined by the now defunct Crime Control Act of 1994 and the term as used by the press?
FWIIW, true true military assault rifle (i.e., select fire of semi-auto vs. either three burst or full-auto) are heavily regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and are often further regulated in some states — and such weapons are virtually never used in crime. Last I checked there had never been a crime committed in Virginia using any legally owned weapon capable of full-auto or burst fire.
FWIIW2, lookalikes are seldom used in crime. The most comprehensive studies that I have seen are dated — but likely still relevant:
1) Kopel, David B, Rational Basis Analysis of “Assault Weapon” Prohibition [ http://tinyurl.com/coglraj ]
California. In 1990, “assault weapons” comprised thirty-six of the 963 firearms involved in homicide or aggravated assault and analyzed by police crime laboratories, according to a report prepared by the California Department of Justice, and based on data from police firearms laboratories throughout the state. The report concluded that “assault weapons play a very small role in assault and homicide firearm cases.” Of the 1,979 guns seized from California narcotics dealers in 1990, fifty-eight were “assault weapons.”
Chicago. From 1985 through 1989, only one homicide was perpetrated with a military caliber rifle. Of the 17,144 guns seized by the Chicago police in 1989, 175 were “military style weapons.”
Florida. Florida Department of Law Enforcement Uniform Crime Reports for 1989 indicate that rifles of all types accounted for 2.6% of the weapons used in Florida homicides. The Florida Assault Weapons Commission found that “assault weapons” were used in 17 of 7,500 gun crimes for the years 1986-1989.
Los Angeles. Of the more than 4,000 guns seized by police during one year, only about 3% were “assault weapons.”
Maryland. In 1989-90, there was only one death involving a “semiautomatic assault rifle” in all twenty-four counties of the State of Maryland.
Massachusetts. Of 161 fatal shootings in Massachusetts in 1988, three involved “semiautomatic assault rifles.” From 1985 to 1991, the guns were involved in 0.7% of all shootings.
Miami. The Miami police seized 18,702 firearms from January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1993. Of these, 3.13% were “assault weapons.”
New Jersey. According to the Deputy Chief Joseph Constance of the Trenton New Jersey Police Department, in 1989, there was not a single murder involving any rifle, much less a “semiautomatic assault rifle,” in the State of New Jersey. No person in New Jersey was killed with an “assault weapon” in 1988. Nevertheless, in 1990 the New Jersey legislature enacted an “assault weapon” ban that included low-power .22 rifles, and even BB guns. Based on the legislature’s broad definition of “assault weapons,” in 1991, such guns were used in five of 410 murders in New Jersey; in forty-seven of 22,728 armed robberies; and in twenty-three of 23,720 aggravated assaults committed in New Jersey.
New York City. Of 12,138 crime guns seized by New York City police in 1988, eighty were “assault-type” firearms.
New York State. Semiautomatic “assault rifles” were used in twenty of the 2,394 murders in New York State in 1992.
San Diego. Of the 3,000 firearms seized by the San Diego police in 1988-90, nine were “assault weapons” under the California definition.
San Francisco. Only 2.2% of the firearms confiscated in 1988 were military-style semiautomatics.
Virginia. Of the 1,171 weapons analyzed in state forensics laboratories in 1992, 3.3% were “assault weapons.”
National statistics. Less than four percent of all homicides in the United States involve any type of rifle. No more than .8% of homicides are perpetrated with rifles using typical military calibers. (And not all rifles using such calibers are usually considered “assault weapons” — under any definition.)
2) Gary Kleck, in Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control (Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York 1997), summarizes the findings of forty-seven such studies, indicating that less than 2% of crime guns were lookalike or true assault weapons (the median was about 1.8%).
3) According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, (Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, May 1996) offenders were armed with a firearm in 10% of all violent crimes. That would mean less than .20% (one-fifth of one percent or 1 in 500) of violent crime offenders used a lookalike or true assault weapon (1.8% X 10% = .18%).
If you have more recent studies (not news sensationalized reports of isolated incidents) that show that either lookalikes or true assault weapon have become a true factor in crime please provide citations.
Why do I carry a gun? Two words: “Schrödinger’s cat”
San Antonio Man Allegedly Pulls Gun On Line-Cutting Black Friday Shopper
In any murder or suicide there will always be those that blame the tool used, rather that the individual using it. That is extremely illogical.
#29 Tell us Grapeshot, do you think that some murders/suicides/murder-suicides are more likely to happen if a person has easy access to a quick method of death, like pulling a trigger?
Dan, as I said, it’s all assumptions until something bad actually happens. I don’t recall denying that. You can choose between an assumption that you live with, or an assumption that you pay for. If you choose to wait until a knife (or worse) physically comes into play, that IS your choice to make. I don’t begrudge you the freedom to decide for yourself. I DO pray that you never have to find out how it plays out.
One assumption that I refuse to make: There WAS a time when a mugging was a business transaction, give it up, and you go home. Same with hijackings. Sit down and shut up, and everyone goes home when it is all over. Sadly, the rules have changed. Now, the two sweet young lads I semi-encountered PROBABLY had no intention whatsoever of doing me physical harm. Bad news Dan…THAT’S an assumption too. In these days of thrill killings, gang initiations, and god knows what all else, the only rule is, there ARE no rules. You are welcome to your assumptions. I’ll make mine for myself, thanks.
Old Blue, I want to extend you my deepest sympathies. NO ONE should have to endure that kind of loss. I DO want to thank you for looking past your own sorrow to allow others to decide for themselves. I wish that others could be as tolerant. I’m not a religious guy, but I pray for you and yours. Sorry that you have to sit through this again. I’ll do my part. I’m out.
Well said nosaj #12! I agree.
Alfred, I bet the guy who was cutting in line, won’t try that trick anymore.
When someone gets fat, I blame the spoon. I do not see the problem with my logic.
Dave Hicks, how often is an assault or killing with a gun a dispassionate, statistical, rational undertaking? The reason the assault weapon ban includes both the real thing and the “look-a-likes” is that in those panicked moments, no one has the time to stop and tell the difference and in effect, it does not matter.
I believe in the Second Amendment and self defense but I also believe that guns are too easy for criminals to get and use. Since that is a fact, we have to find the middle ground that at least crimps the criminal element and would to God stops the law-abiding from “turning” when we can. The truth is that there are things we can do that ensure legal gun owners their leisure and criminal gun owners their worst nightmare. Right now, we do neither.
“There WAS a time when a mugging was a business transaction, give it up, and you go home. Same with hijackings. Sit down and shut up, and everyone goes home when it is all over. Sadly, the rules have changed. Now, the two sweet young lads I semi-encountered PROBABLY had no intention whatsoever of doing me physical harm. Bad news Dan…THAT’S an assumption too. In these days of thrill killings, gang initiations, and god knows what all else, the only rule is, there ARE no rules. You are welcome to your assumptions. I’ll make mine for myself, thanks.”
Wrong. Probability is not an assumption. It’s a fact derived from data. The fact is, a miniscule proportion of strong-arm robberies end in death. Therefore, there’s a strong likelihood yours would have gone the same way, and that likelihood is a fact — though it’s not a guarantee.
hey John Wilburn,
let me say this once and for all…I agree with you on everything you’ve had to say about guns. I wonder how many guns Walmart imports from China? I couldn’t resist…
Also, the espnu announcers at the game’s end were merciless toward Mike London’s time management, to the extent that I betcha some viewers were thinking they might be racist.
Update for Dan…
Remember the post I made a while back with my ideas for community involvement with the Taubman Museum? (And my massive frustration with their museum directors being rude.) Well, Mr. Fralin mailed a note to my home and said that my ideas would be presented to the new board after new management is place. (And he said it not once, but twice, in that communiqué.)
Evidently, they do give a damn.
Since I bashed a few of them publically (for their employees’ rudeness), I figured I would acknowledge him publically for being gracious and agreeing to consider my ideas.
Thank you, Mr. Fralin.
“how often is an assault or killing with a gun a dispassionate, statistical, rational undertaking?
Statistics allow some people to sleep at night, so long as the gun violence isn’t too close to their own backyard (aka gun nimbys).
“The truth is that there are things we can do that ensure legal gun owners their leisure and criminal gun owners their worst nightmare. Right now, we do neither.”
Bullseye with a hollow point bullet to the heart of the gun nimbys.
“I kinda think the end times are coming..so I loaded up.”
..a red state is a red state is a red state..
Yes it does make some blue.
The gun industry should send Obama a thank you!
Hey Dave Gresham,
Good for you to express your thoughts to the museums’ board, and for sharing the response on Dan’s forum. Well done, sir. All ol’ dano’s about is belittling people, and ideas, with which he doesn’t agree.
Sure…they only want to help us…
The 63 Fix the Debt companies that are publicly held stand to gain as much as $134 billion in windfalls if Congress approves one of their main proposals — a “territorial tax system.” Under this system, companies would not have to pay U.S. federal income taxes on foreign earnings when they bring the profits back to the United States.
The CEOs backing Fix the Debt personally received a combined total of $41 million in savings last year thanks to the Bush-era tax cuts. The top CEO beneficiary of the Bush tax cuts in 2011, Leon Black of Apollo Global Management, saved $9.9 million on the Bush tax cuts. The private equity fund leader reaped $215 million in taxable income last year just from vested stock.
Of the 63 Fix the Debt CEOs at publicly held firms, 24 received more in compensation last year than their corporations paid in federal corporate income taxes. All but six of these firms reported U.S. profits last year.”
The foxes continue to guard the hen house and expect the poor, elderly and workers to pay for it.
“let me say this once and for all…I agree with you on everything you’ve had to say about guns. I wonder how many guns Walmart imports from China? I couldn’t resist…”
Remember what I said would be left in Wal-Mart if it went domestic….. the dairy case, the gun cabinet, and one shelf? Yeah. However, I’m assuming you have heard of Norinco.
“Also, the espnu announcers at the game’s end were merciless toward Mike London’s time management, to the extent that I betcha some viewers were thinking they might be racist.”
London earned every bit of it. Although, the award for worst time and play management of Saturday goes to Lane Kiffin of USC. He let several minutes pour off of the clock without using his TOs in the red zone. Also, when USC needed two scores, he tried to get the touchdown first a yard or two at a time, consuming way too much time to do so. He should have kicked the field goal, saved several minutes, and give the team a chance to score again. Going for it on 4th down was inescusable too. He was either spaced out, greedy, or gave up… his calls didn’t make sense. He’s always been very agressive, but still off his game last night.
DH, instead of “assault weapons,” let me say weapons with a high capacity (16 + rounds) magazine. In my opinion, these weapons (rifles and handguns) are for nothing more than killing human beings at a devestating rate. I have no quarrel with hunting weapons used to take game. While I do not hunt, I understand that taking game as sport or for food is part of the American landscape.
JW, I don’t see my position as contradictory. I agree that there are few sniper killings, and my guess is that few hunting weapons are used in purposeful killings (accidental killings are another matter). Gdad said at #30, “do you think that some murders/suicides/murder-suicides are more likely to happen if a person has easy access to a quick method of death, like pulling a trigger?” I agree with gdad. Not only the easy access but also the ease of use afforded by a firearm contributes to these deaths.
Gentlemen, my position is simple. If there were fewer guns, then there would be fewer purposeful or accidental deaths by guns. I cannot match statistics with you; in my mind it is a matter of common sense. As I said in my first post, both sides of this argument reside at the extremes, and a reasoned middle ground will serve us all better than the current debate.
Re: “no one has the time to stop and tell the difference and in effect, it does not matter.”
You are right. It doesn’t matter. Would it matter to you were it a pump shotgun rather that a lookalike or real Kalashnikov? How would you react differently?
To me, it wouldn’t matter much if it were a pump shotgun, a lookalike Kalashnikov, real Kalashnikov, or single shot aimed at me.
How about someone coming at you with a knife?
IMHO, if you are unarmed, you pray, duck, and move. OTOH, if you are armed, you can pray, duck, move, and use you sidearm to try to stop the threat.
No guarantees. Just one more possibility — if you are armed.
“Gentlemen, my position is simple.”
That it is.
“If there were fewer guns, then there would be fewer purposeful or accidental deaths by guns.”
Then why has the gun crime rate, including murders, plummeted in the last two decades? Accidental deaths are also at near all time lows. Or this from Virginia:
Gun violence in Va. falls, firearm sales up
“I cannot match statistics with you; in my mind it is a matter of common sense.”
Who needs facts? I’ve got my gut!
“As I said in my first post, both sides of this argument reside at the extremes, and a reasoned middle ground will serve us all better than the current debate.”
I look forward to meeting a representative of this mythological viewpoint.
“my position is simple. If there were fewer guns, then there would be fewer purposeful or accidental deaths by guns.”
And if there were fewer cars, there would be fewer auto accidents whether they are honest mistakes or by drunk drivers.
“both sides of this argument reside at the extremes, and a reasoned middle ground will serve us all better than the current debate.”
What is “extreme” is subject to interpretation. I don’t at all think it is extreme to regain lawful carry in airports this General Assembly session. We carrie in airports until 2004 and there were no problems. It was taken from us in exchange for the repeal of local gun control… which has led to no probels either. A compromise was made for no good reason and we want back what was rightfully ours, working fine, and hurt no one. The very same thing goes for the restaurant ban that was repealed in 2010. There was “bloodshed over bar tabs” predicted, but that didn’t come to pass; instead it went away totally uneventfully. Why was the ban put in place? Not because of any problem, but rather in an attempt to kill the shall-issue CHP bill of 1995. Shall issue increased permits from 10,000 to 300,000 and has not led to any problems.
The point being that all of these supposed “extremes” turn out to be things we used to have and responsibly enjoying, but were taken from us somewhere along the way without any good cause. So why now should I compromise with the people who defend those liberties being wrongly taken in the first place? Same with your magazine position. It’s not a problem; why make that solution in search of a problem? That’s what we’ve been combating for years.
sheesh, John, here I go agreeing weith you again…for the most part.
1. I just couldn’t resist the China thingy. Won’t happen again…with you.
2. Since no one has yet presented (that I’ve seen) a rational reason for why Londaon did what he did, I’d say that he just wasn’t focused on what he should have been focused on. However, he’s got enough coaches that one of’em ought to have responsibility to interject issues related to clock management directly to London when things get dicey.
3. I watched the ND/USC game as well, and agree with you again. The worst time manager award of the day…maybe of the year, should go to Kiffen (still can’t see what everyone else sees in that guy). However, the announcers, in my opinion, didn’t beat him up nearly as much as the ones on espnu did to London.
So, is it racist, I wonder, what London’s getting?
Re: #42. Ugly comment Frank. I’ve met Dan a couple of times and can tell you first hand that he is a pretty good guy. On the other hand, the vacuous crap you generally spew carries its own antidote and so normally needs no reply… However, since you saw fit to insult him for no reason (but jealousy), let me tell you how obvious it is that puberty is taking decades for you.
28.”San Antonio Man Allegedly Pulls Gun On Line-Cutting Black Friday Shopper”
BTW, the line cutter assaulted the gun carrier.
I went to one crazy Black Friday sales event for a GPS, several people shoved the line on me, and I didn’t need to pull my gun(s) on anyone.
The Belk Bowl is in Charlotte, NC. It used to be called the Meineke Car Care Bowl. That name has now been assigned to a bowl game in Texas. I saw a projection yesterday that had VT playing Syracuse in the Belk Bowl this year. Today’s projections has Duke playing in the Belk Bowl and VT playing in the Sun Bowl which another blogger projected I think. Neither bowl is one of the biggies. However, the Sun Bowl has a long and storied past. It is held in El Paso, Texas I think.
“The gun industry should send Obama a thank you!”
Yep. Some industry group, can’t remember who it was, did give him some kind of, “Salesman of the Year” award.
Barack Obama, through both action and inaction, has been one of the most pro-gun presidents in recent memory. Easily so over Bush 1, Clinton, and Reagan, and mildly over Bush 2.
Re: nosaj 8:08 pm
If there were fewer guns, then there would be fewer purposeful or accidental deaths by guns.
Ditto cars. Fewer cars then there would be fewer purposeful or accidental deaths by cars.
OTOH, the data from Australia following their massive expansion of restrictions on firearm ownership is very interesting as there is no need for apples and orange demographic debate. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any consensus that there is a linear relationship between the number of legally held firearms and the rate of shooting deaths in a community (i.e. fewer legal guns = fewer shootings. There are “studies” claiming success and “studies” claiming failure. And, there are studies discounting the opposing studies.
“Some scholars even credit the 1996 gun law with causing the decrease in deaths from firearms, though they are still debating that point. A 2003 study from AIC, which looked at rates between 1991 and 2001, found that some of the decline in firearm-related homicides (and suicides as well) began before the reform was enacted. On the other hand, a 2006 analysis by scholars at the University of Sydney concluded that gun fatalities decreased more quickly after the reform. Yet another analysis, from 2008, from the University of Melbourne, concluded that the buyback had no significant effect on firearm suicide or homicide rates.”
Some more details here: http://www.gunsandcrime.org/austudies.html
OK, it seems as if academia doesn’t agree re: “gun” crime decline as a result of the expanded control. So where is the linear relationship between the number of legally held firearms and the rate of shooting deaths in a community?
So, how about the overall homicide rate for Australia?
Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice paper, “Homicide in Australia 1999-2000″ provides a statistical snapshot of police recorded homicides in the last year, as well as information on trends over the last 11 years and jurisdictional comparisons. Trends show that the homicide rate for Australia has stayed remarkably constant. The highest rate recorded over the last 11 years was 2 per 100,000 and the lowest rate was 1.7 per 100,000. These data come from the National Homicide Monitoring Program (NHMP), which was established by the Australian Institute of Criminology in 1990 and has recorded every case of homicide in Australia since 1989.
Note the “trends show that the homicide rate for Australia has stayed remarkably constant.” Doesn’t sound like a roaring success to me. Where is the linear relationship between the number of legally held firearms and the rate of deaths in a community?
So, in that data from the US shows that offenders armed with a firearm committe about 10% of all the violent crimes might not that suggest an easy shift to different weapons of choice for criminals even if the black-market could be stopped?
Now, think about black markets for a minute. Do you really believe that the demand for illegally access to firearms will dry up? Did Prohibition teach us nothing? How about the Sterling success of the “War on Drugs”? IMHO, if you like the “War on Drugs, you’re gonna love the “War on Guns”, if it gains real traction.
Frank, I come here with something to post and just reading your moronic fauxy drivel drains my energy. You’ve dragged the aggregate IQ here down 50 points just showing up. Congrats.
Yes the Sun Bowl is in El Paso..
It goes back to Jan 1935.
I saw a game there in the early 70-s.
Va Tech played there in 1947…Cincinnati
beat em 18-6…
In 1970 Georgia Tech beat Texas Tech 17-9
..MVP was Rock Perdoni a real local phenom
who played before GA Tech at Ferrum (then Jr College).
#48 Let’s face it, John W., the world would generally be a better place with fewer or almost no guns. Not necessarily so without transportation, although we would indeed be better off in the U.S. with fewer cars.
I think I just found a church that John Wilburn might be willing to join.
Whew, I got myself in deep! A few points of clarification. I am in no way “declaring a war on guns.”. The war on drugs was a dismal failure – agreed. I do not see the relevance of comparing firearms and automobiles. One is designed to cause death, the other to aid travel. Both can cause death. The incidence of vehicular deaths is down dramatically due to safety regulations. Better safety classes can help reduce the incidence of accidental death with firearms. However, they are not remotely alike. Finally, statistics are useful, but not always dispositive of a certain outcome. Jason, I am fond of my “gut,” as it has served me, but I am thankful for all the information I can get. Enough said by me on this topic!
“the world would generally be a better place with fewer or almost no guns.”
Yes, a world where 250 pound men would be free to rape 125 women without fear of being shot. A world where three attackers can beat someone until he/she has permanent brain damage without risking harm. A world like London, where there are many, many more stabbings because there are no guns. I just don’t buy your vision, gdad.
58.”I think I just found a church that John Wilburn might be willing to join.”
Re: Bowl games for VT, I suspect that John Wilburn’s first guess is right:
Franklin American Mortgage Music City
Nashville, TN @ LP Field
Dec. 31, 12:00 pm, ESPN
Russell Athletic Bowl
Orlando, FL @ Florida Citrus Bowl Stadium
5:30 p.m. (EST) Dec. 28
“maybe of the year, should go to Kiffen (still can’t see what everyone else sees in that guy).”
I think Kiffin is a punk. After VT thumped Tennessee in the Music City Bowl that year he was coach, he didn’t even shake hands and congratulate Beamer at mid field after the game, as is customary. That showed a real lack of class. Also, he hung Tennessee out to dry after one year for an opportunity at USC. In contrast, Les Miles had an opportunity to go home to coach Michigan, but wasn’t going to leave LSU in the cold. Instead he stayed and continued to build that program as he agreed to. Les Miles is a classy guy and Kiffin is not. Les Miles is a winner and Kiffin is not. Coincidence… I think not.
To change the subject and harken back a few threads:
GOP Starting to Rebel Against No-Tax-Hikes Pledge
By DAVID KERLEY (@David_Kerley)
WASHINGTON, Nov. 25, 2012
With the fiscal cliff looming for the United States, some Republican members of Congress said today they are ready to break a long standing pledge not to raise taxes.
“The only pledge we should be making to each other is to avoid becoming Greece. And Republicans should put revenue on the table,” South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham said on ABC’s “This Week.”
Graham’s comments followed those by another Republican senator, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, who said last week he’ll no longer abide by the pledge.
“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” he said in a local interview.
He got support today from House member Peter King, another Republican from New York.
This growing chorus is about the pledge that Americans for Tax Reform president Grover Norquist has gotten hundreds of Republicans to sign. But in an interview with ABC News, Norquist says it’s just a few deserters.
More on the GOP’s song of sanity Monday morning.
Guns dont kill people ..Monkeys with guns kill people..
I do not think the issue is the number of guns but the number of idiots and criminals in our society. Although accidents and mishandling happen even with trained professionals, it is the handgun in every home that is dangerous (some people are just idiots!) and the easy access of guns to criminals and the emotionally stunted that cause the mayhem we see and abhor. The gun rights people agree to accept the deaths and mayhem. The gun control people do not. There will never be a meeting of those minds and I find no point in trying any longer.
I guess if you’ve substituted your brain with a gun, every situation needs to be handled with a gun.
“Put yourself in his shoes after you shoot two people in your basement,” Bruce Smith said. “How are you going to react?”
I guess I’m a communist, but I’m more inclined to worry about the reaction of a family with two dead kids.
“The gun rights people agree to accept the deaths and mayhem. The gun control people do not.”
No, the gun rights people just want to have their say as to whether or not they die as the result of mayhem. When those in the ivory towers are allowed to write more words on paper to exclusively disarm the law-abiding, while more defenseless people die, it cannot be claimed that the pro-rights people are the ones who don’t care…quite the opposite.
I do believe you care, but your approach is a proven failure. It will never be so easy as a plie of laws on paper.
“I guess if you’ve substituted your brain with a gun, every situation needs to be handled with a gun.”
What did the emotional, irrational gun banners replace their brain with? I’ve been trying to figure that out for years!
The “Breaking News” of the 7-11 reminded me…
I had a client once who used to work at 7-11. He was robbed while working the register one night. He gave the robbers the money, then they shot him in the face. He survived. So much for that idea that there’s safety in just giving them what they want.
#70 “So much for that idea that there’s safety in just giving them what they want.”
Gee, John W, that’s sort of like saying that a 1-foot snow every now and then proves there’s no global warming. I can name three people I know who just gave up the money and they were not harmed.
Get back to us when you have stats covering what percentage of people are shot while just giving up the money versus how many are shot futilely trying to beat the robber to the draw and so on.
#70 BTW, John W, I can’t remember anybody who’s ever claimed that you’re ALWAYS safe giving them what they want. My memory is that stats show you’re generally safer, especially if you’re not well trained. Perhaps you have a link to an ALWAYS safe claim?
Whew…. good thing Valley View is posted against carry. That guy could be a danger to those inside if he were allowed to bring his gun in!
#73 Yeah, John W, and thank heavens this guy had a pistol so that when his rifle jammed, he could finish off the two wounded, unarmed teenagers in his house. Especially when that one twerp laughed. She deserved to be shot in the head.
Thank the lord we have lots of guns.
gdad, such a horrible story. Who the hell shoots two unarmed kids dead and doesn’t call the cops about it? Because certainly someone tinkering in their workshop or whatever needs access to several loaded weapons at any given moment.
I hope he enjoys his life behind bars.
“What did the emotional, irrational gun banners replace their brain with?’
Why, nothing. Which means I retain the capability to think of solutions beyond “just shoot it”.
“Which means I retain the capability to think of solutions beyond “just shoot it”.”
Me too, but I have that one last solution you don’t.
gdad, cooperation is fine, but it works until it doesn’t. We all know how evil some people can be and I choose to be prepared instead of tell myself the odds of being harmed are small so why bother. You get points for importing that story where some disturbed guy did everything wrong in an attempt to demonize all gun owners… top notch and typical gdad.
What I don’t understand are the heads of households who don’t want that defensive tool and would rather chance the harm to their family. Are there really that many people who are so inept that they can’t secure their firearm?
Sorry John Wilburn, but even when the efforts at gun control do not keep all guns out of the wrong hands every time, they are still worth it for the ones they do and it is still true that the gun rights people agree to accept the deaths and mayhem and the gun control people do not. You all just think it is to persecute you and your guns. We are trying to save lives, even if we do not have the best method figured out yet, we are at least trying. We appear to be trying alone.
When the gun rights folks “have their say as to whether or not they die”, that same “freedom” allows the bad guys and the insane guys to create the death and mayhem. You cannot argue it does not. No one is in an “ivory tower” and trying to fix a problem does not mean you give up if one solution does not work and just accept the casualties.
It can be claimed that the pro-gun rights people care about themselves and their choices, it cannot be claimed that the pro-rights people are the ones who care enough to stop the bad and crazy people from getting guns. Name a law that the NRA or any other gun rights organization has lobbied for that does so, even minimally?
Jason has mentioned time and time again how a better society with better education, less poverty, more opportunity etc, will help the situation. Name a gun rights organization that lobbies for any of that or one that supports candidates who want to work on that? In fact, the opposite is true. I have never seen a gun rights organization lobby for any but the most parsimonious and social program cutting candidates because they were “good on guns” and that is all that matters.
You are the one familiar with the gun rights organizations, so tell me the laws they lobby for that will help the problem? Why is “your way” not a “proven failure”?
#75 I’m just so glad this guy was adequately armed, Kristen. If he hadn’t been, that girl might have kept laughing at him. Can’t have that.
#73 And BTW, John W, there’s no indication from the newspaper story that the guy ever showed or possessed a gun. He simply passed over a note.
“What I don’t understand are the heads of households who don’t want that defensive tool and would rather chance the harm to their family. Are there really that many people who are so inept that they can’t secure their firearm?”
JW, I’m the head of a household who, as YOU would say, would rather chance the harm to their family.
I decided long ago that no guns was best in my household of 6, including 4 kids for the following reasons:
1. The value of having a loaded, easily accessible gun was outweighed by the risk associated with having that loaded, easily accessible gun in a house where 4 kids live, and many others (my kids’ friends) traipse through regularly.
2. The value of having an UNLOADED, NOT easily accessible gun seemed to be zero. If I can’t grab a useful weapon in a rare moment of extreme and unexpected violence, what good is it at all? And if it’s locked in a safe, or it has a trigger lock on it, or it’s unloaded, it is not useful.
Btw, I have never needed a gun in the house, because in 26 years of marriage (and for all of my life before that) no moment of extreme and unexpected violence ever visited any home I live in.
Now let me ask you this: has any moment of extreme and unexpected violence ever visited a home in which you have lived, in which you felt your life was in danger?
Also: do you have an anti-meteorite missile system protecting your house, just in case a rock falls from the sky at it?
No? Why not? Homes are hit by meteorites, you know.
Is it possible you’ve done a cost-benefit analysis and concluded one was unnecessary?
#77 “You get points for importing that story where some disturbed guy did everything wrong in an attempt to demonize all gun owners… top notch and typical gdad.”
Followed by John W passing it off as just some nut so it doesn’t really count as two kids being killed by a gunowner. Typical John W.
JohnW, instead of blaming the messenger, why don’t you address the shooter instead?
“What I don’t understand are the heads of households who don’t want that defensive tool and would rather chance the harm to their family.”
Give me a break. The overwhelming majority of things that can go wrong and harm your family can’t be prevented with a gun. A gun conveys (to some) nothing but some false sense of control. It’s hardly a cure-all. Clearly you perceive danger differently than other gun owners. You think a gun will keep your family safe, but probably laugh at people who spend extra on pesticide-free food as being band-wagonning yuppies.
You keep your family safe your way, and I’ll do it mine.
“John W passing it off as just some nut so it doesn’t really count as two kids being killed by a gunowner. Typical John W.”
Yep, sure is, just like a VCDL and NRA member using cherry picked anecdotes as if they ameliorate the broader context, while another VCDL apologist who loves to lecture on logic stays conspicuously mum about the validity of doing so and doesn’t report any loss of sleep over gun violence that wasn’t nearby.
Or, maybe anecdotes are good reason to ignore the broader context. After all, there must a guy somewhere who let himself get obese in his twenties, or smokes, with absolutely no bad effects on his liver, cardiovascular, pulmonary or other body systems, which might mean that everyone who smokes or gets obese in their twenties will never have done anything detrimental to their body.
At least, that is, if they have guns.
(Cue the “personal choice” libertarian delusionists, as if the idea of societal costs is a fiction).
78.”Sorry John Wilburn, but even when the efforts at gun control do not keep all guns out of the wrong hands every time, they are still worth it for the ones they do and it is still true that the gun rights people agree to accept the deaths and mayhem and the gun control people do not.”
So the people who were able to defend themselves don’t mean much to Sandi. I guess the casualties at VT are just collateral damage to her.
“We are trying to save lives, even if we do not have the best method figured out yet, we are at least trying. We appear to be trying alone.”
So are we…. the innocent lives.
Kristen says it will never happen to her.
Dan says it will never happen to him. I hope they’re both right.
Warren is just being what he is.
Interestingly, my dad was at work years ago and did see a meteorite come down very nearby. I’m sure he was carrying, but fortunately didn’t need it.
Hey, John W, got those stats for us yet? Well here’s one you can add. I guess that just giving the robber what he wants CAN help keep you from harm.
“Johnson said the man brandished a firearm after entering the store and demanded money. He made off with an undisclosed amount of cash and fled the scene without hurting anyone.”
JW, you haven’t disputed my risk-benefit analysis explaining my decision not to have a gun in a house full of kids.
Shall I conclude from that you’re in agreement?
I saw that gdad. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. Fortunately for me, I don’t have to rely on the good nature of theives.
Dan, I saw your post but have been busy (I’m in Flordia at the moment, but working on boring office stuff). You’re beginning to put words in my mouth over things like Maddow and this, and that’s not cool. Historically, you haven’t done that.
I understand your position, but think that it’s a responsibility you don’t want. Having a gun in the house with children requires that they be raised to respect it and everyone from teens and up be trained to use it. Like a lot of things, kids who grow up being educated about something are usually well adjusted on the topic as adults…sex, drugs, guns, etc. It’s your decision to make and I respect your right to make it, but don’t agree. I think with discipline and responsibility, the scale tips the other way. It’s a discipline I have and responsibility I accept.
One thing I will say; kids who sees what kind of power guns have up close at the range are generally more safety conscious than a kid who stumbles upon an irresponsible adult’s gun in a night stand. Taking kids to the range is rewarding for the adult and child.
“Dan, I saw your post but have been busy (I’m in Flordia at the moment, but working on boring office stuff). You’re beginning to put words in my mouth over things like Maddow and this, and that’s not cool. Historically, you haven’t done that.”
–Comment by John Wilburn, 12:03 a.m. Wednesday
“Yes, Dan wouldn’t want to see the majority of people be able to fashion their government in the way they want without the parliamentary efforts of a few to promote special interests.”
–Comment by John Wilburn, 3:52 p.m. Tuesday
“What I don’t understand are the heads of households who don’t want that defensive tool and would rather chance the harm to their family. Are there really that many people who are so inept that they can’t secure their firearm?
–Comment by John Wilburn, 3:03 p.m. Tuesday
Now, JW, you’re changing the parameters of the discussion. Before, it was about being “ept” enough to secure your household firearms. Now you’re saying that it’s NOT so much a matter of securing you’re firearms, but training your kids to use/respect them so that you don’t need to worry about the guns being stored insecurely.
Dan, it takes both to be effective. You must be responsible for the security of your firearm, but part of that responsibility is to teach those who may come in contact with it. It’s prudent to be prepared for “what if” that security fails or the rare need arises. It’ a comprehensive strategy.
Here you go. From the Northwestern University School of Law, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 86, issue 1, 1995:
“Panels D and E nevertheless confirm previous research on the effectiveness of self-defense with a gun–crime victims who use this form of self-protection rarely lose property and rarely provoke the offender into hurting them. In property crime incidents where burglary, robbery, or other thefts were attempted, victims lost property in just 11% of the cases. Gun defenders were injured in just 5.5% of all DGU incidents. Further, in 84% of the incidents where the defender was threatened or attacked, it was the offender who first threatened or used force. In none of the eleven sample cases where gun defenders were injured was the defender the first to use or to threaten force. The victim used a gun to threaten or attack the offender only after the offender had already attacked or threatened them and usually after the offender had inflicted the injury. There is no support in this sample for the hypothesis that armed resistance provokes criminals into attacking victims; this confirms the findings of prior research.”
As usual, you have it backwards John Wilburn. It is YOU for whom the “casualties at VT are just collateral damage”. Name ONE law the gun advocates lobbied for that would have stopped the killer from having a gun or using it? Your ONLY solution is for everyone to be armed and ready to defend themselves everywhere.
Your method of saving “the innocent lives” insists upon guns being unfettered, which ASSURES the death and mayhem that accompany that mantra.
I consider having a gun-free home taking perfect responsibility for its security, and have zero interest in range shooting with my kids. All they’ve ever needed to know about guns is to turn around and walk away if they see one.
If you want a gun-centered homelife, have at it.
Name is required
A valid email is required (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Comment is required
Your email address will not be published.All fields are required to comment.
Mon, 20 May 2013 05:22:51 +0000
Metro Columnist Dan Casey knows a little bit about a lot of things but not a heck of a lot about most things. That doesn't keep him from writing about them, however. So keep him honest!
He welcomes your rants, raves and considered opinions, so long as the language is civil (i.e. no four-letter words). He'll read all your posts and may or may not respond.