Ketch's 10 Thoughts From the Weekend (History repeating itself with baseball hire)

[-Kirby-]

seems like the AR-15 and the 9mm are the main weapons of choice when killers want to kill people in mass quantities.

9mm seems like the first choice. So do you want to ban the 9mm as well? Afterall, handguns account for almost 30x as many deaths as AR15s. Are they "weapons of mass destruction" too?

 

[Ketchum]

Nope. The worst mass killing was at Wounded Knee. Our govt murdered 290 plus unarmed men, women and children. They had nothing with which to defend themselves.

Tell me that can't happen Ketch !!!

It already has Big Boy.

a. Mass shooting.
b. I think every understands larger slaughters have occurred on our soil.
c. I'd be careful with the big boys. Your basically on your last strike. Your next timeout will be a long one.

 

[Ketchum]

9mm seems like the first choice. So do you want to ban the 9mm as well? Afterall, handguns account for almost 30x as many deaths as AR15s. Are they "weapons of mass destruction" too?

I think the starting and ending point needs to be on weapons clearly created for war and the purpose of mass slaughters.

Should there be some regulations on other automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Yeah. Like, let's start with background checks and limits to people with criminal records as it relates to gun use or those that might end up on a terrorist lists.

Some of this stuff is only rocket science because we make it so.

 

[Perdy]

View embedded media

All day you have ridiculed peopl who believe that you and other liberals want to take away guns. (see cartoon) You advocate banning AR15s then you snicker at people who claim that liberals want to ban AR15s. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

The study to which you linked has this nugget:

Australia's 1996 National Firearms Agreement (which outright confiscated 650,000 guns, in addition to imposing background checks and licensing rules) is perhaps the best-studied of any of the international laws. Santaella-Tenorio et al. reviewed eight studies on it, most of which found clear and strong evidence of a reduction in firearm deaths after the law's passage.

Our fears of gun confiscation are very real. Obama and other Dems have hinted that they wish to go this route. Belittling those that disagree with you without offering convincing counter arguments leads nowhere.

 

[Perdy]

I think the starting and ending point needs to be on weapons clearly created for war and the purpose of mass slaughters.

Should there be some regulations on other automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Yeah. Like, let's start with background checks and limits to people with criminal records as it relates to gun use or those that might end up on a terrorist lists.

Some of this stuff is only rocket science because we make it so.

Come on Ketch. Stop the propoganda.

Please tell me what gun that is "created for war" is not regulated? AR15s are semi auto as are millions of other hunting rifles that look like traditional guns. The AR 15 is only styled to look like an automatic weapon. And almost all guns are capable of mass slaughter.

And can you stop acting like guns aren't regulated? To buy one you must pass a background check. We already stop people with criminal records. The terror list is a great talking point, but very problematic.

 

[RAISTLIN]

seems like the AR-15 and the 9mm are the main weapons of choice when killers want to kill people in mass quantities.

In 1973, 32 people were murdered at a New Orleans bar frequented by homosexuals. The murder weapon of choice .... fire. It was an arson. The perpetrator in Orlando could have killed as many or more with an explosive vest or IED. The ingredients are available at Lowe's and the instructions are on the internet. The method is secondary, it's the perpetrator that is important. Americans know that our enemy is radical Islam; Obama thinks that our enemy is the NRA. That is why people are dying.

 

[-Kirby-]

I think the starting and ending point needs to be on weapons clearly created for war and the purpose of mass slaughters.

Should there be some regulations on other automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Yeah. Like, let's start with background checks and limits to people with criminal records as it relates to gun use or those that might end up on a terrorist lists.

Some of this stuff is only rocket science because we make it so.

There are already HEAVY regulations on automatic weapons (actual assault rifles). I mean EXTREMELY onerous regulations, and exorbitant costs are involved as well. So I'm not really sure why you ask if there should be regulations on automatic weapons because they're already HEAVILY regulated. It's a moot point.

I'm all for background checks or limiting access to those with criminal records or appear on a terrorist watch list. You'll get no argument from me there.

 

[Big Ed Bookman]

a. Mass shooting.
b. I think every understands larger slaughters have occurred on our soil.
c. I'd be careful with the big boys. Your basically on your last strike. Your next timeout will be a long one.

Incredible on c. Big Boy as in the man as far as the hierarchy of mods/power/owner here. Jeeeez.

Let me just say this:

A. You're getting your ass kicked on this thread
B. Do you really think it's wise for you piss off so many conservatives/gun owners/2ndAmendment folks here?
C. Is your goal here to win political arguments or increase your subscriber base?
D. Did I mention you're getting your ass kicked?

 

[utfan101]

About half this post/thread belongs in the corral. Mods?

 

[CPHornfan]

a. AR-15s need to be banned. It's a weapon of mass destruction.

b. I'm not a guy that wants to see guns taken away, but it's silly to pretend that these guns are the same as others.

c. When exactly is a time to have a conversation about gun control. This terrorist bought his guns legally. The senate shot down a bill last December designed to ban people on terrorists lists from buying guns.

How many mass shooting with the same weapon of choice need to occur before we can have a talk about gun control?

Wake up.

Never thought i would say this, but i actually agree with Ketch about the AR-15's. However, maybe a ban on large magazines (that can be fitted to many semi-automatic weapons) would be more effective than banning the AR-15 in itself.

The Ar-15 has been described as a weapon designed to kill people with maximum ease and efficiency. It was used by the gunman who shot dead 26 children and adults in Sandy Hook Elementary in 2012, then recently used again in Orlando.

"Gun control campaigners say there is no legitimate civilian use for the AR-15 semi-automatic weapon; its size and firepower mean it is a liability for home defense. And yet, say activists, it is repeatedly the weapon of choice for those who embark on deadly attacks on civilians."

"The AR-15 trademark is still held by Colt, but other patents have expired and clones (colloquially known as AR-15s) are made by several manufacturers - not just Remington. The difference in terms of 'selective fire' between the semi-automatic AR-15 and most M-16s used by the US military is not the ability to switch between semi and auto, but rather semi and 3-shot burst. Only some minority variants of currently issued M-16 have an 'auto' option, since this is not judged to be very effective. The 'receivers' (main body) on recent AR-15s have been re-designed so that M-16 trigger components can't be dropped straight in to convert easily to fully automatic.
There is no doubt that the AR-15 is marketed as a military style 'black rifle', but its action and characteristics are very similar to a large number of sporting semi-automatic rifles. Perhaps one could say that it is less practical for legitimate purposes than say a stock hunting or target rifle, but it does not fire any more quickly or use more lethal ammunition."

I am also a big supporter of the rights to bear arms but i am in favor of tougher gun laws in the USA. Banning semi-auto guns I would agree with, however, banning these guns will not stop terrorists from acquiring them..That is a fact.

 

[-Kirby-]

I am also a big supporter of the rights to bear arms but i am in favor of tougher gun laws in the USA. Banning semi-auto guns I would agree with, however, banning these guns will not stop terrorists from acquiring them..That is a fact.

These two sentences contradict each other. You're pro-2nd Amendment, and you're also for the banning of semi-auto guns?? If this is your stance, you're not pro-2nd Amendment, my friend.

 

[CS]

I think the starting and ending point needs to be on weapons clearly created for war and the purpose of mass slaughters.

Jumping in late here, but I want to make sure you're not implying that an AR-15 is a weapon of war. It is not. It is a regular rifle. That it is styled like a military rifle does not mean that it performs like one.

 

[Victor St Claire]

I think the starting and ending point needs to be on weapons clearly created for war and the purpose of mass slaughters.

Should there be some regulations on other automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Yeah. Like, let's start with background checks and limits to people with criminal records as it relates to gun use or those that might end up on a terrorist lists.

Some of this stuff is only rocket science because we make it so.

I have now realized you have very little knowledge of firearms in general so that leaves you at a huge disadvantage when discussing the issue. That is not a low blow or shot at you just the reality. There has been less than five instances that I have found in research that show the use of a fully automatic gun being used. Two of those were used by law enforcement and one instance I believe was during the Miami drug shoot outs in the 80's. So in summation we can let that argument go as it is a non issue and next to impossible to get your hands on one much less the extraordinary cost to buy one if you find one available. So let the automatic weapon of mass destruction go as you sound and are uneducated on that weapon and regulations with it.

On to semi-auto weapons. Majority of pistols in the public and on the market place today are semi-auto. They come in many different calibers including yes 9mm, 45, 40, 357, 38 and .22 to name a few. These are all the same guns minus the caliber they were built in. I am sure that the 9mm is the choice of mass murders as it is the most readily available pistol and ammo. It is also cheap when comparing the pistol and ammo combination. But lets go ahead and ban it because it is used in mass murders often. So what gun steps into its place? The next cheapest and readily available pistol.

While we are at it lets look at the bad name given to the AR. Sure the name itself does it a disservice. Assault Rifle. It just sounds bad. It is no different then the pistols mentioned above outside of round carrying capacity, in that every time you pull the trigger a round is fired. So when you pull the trigger one and only one round is fired. Same as all the pistols above. Positives of the AR over a Pistol in the Orlando Shooting would be carrying capacity of the rounds. You can get say four 30 round mags and fire 120 bullets in the air. One magazine starts in rifle and 3 on person with 3 different reloads a you can do some damage in short time. You give me one of the pistols say the .357 and I can do just as much damage in just about 10-15 seconds longer time frame. A bunch can happen in 10-15 seconds but lets not act like the AR 15 a killing machine compared to a semi-auto pistol. It is really has one advantage and that is speed but that advantage is not that huge in the grand scheme of things. But it is an advantage none the less.

The AR is also more accurate at longer ranges compare to a pistol but I don't see that being an advantage inside a nightclub as it is pretty close quarters situation. In s shootout in an outdoor setting huge advantage AR and its not even close. The advantage of the better accuracy is due to the longer barrel but the big disadvantage of the longer barrel is being able to conceal along with close quarter aiming and firing. I would personally take a pistol and pistols only to a setting like Orlando as I know I could do more damage in roughly the same amount of time with at pistol. But what do I know I am not mental or a terrorist so I don't see life the same way as them.

Ketch I am all about the discussion but I really think it does a huge disservice to the complete situation saying "guns" when the reason for the killings was someones religious beliefs. I agree that if AR weren't readily available he wouldn't have used them in the shooting but you hopefully agree that he would have used a bomb or some other means to to do the same or possibly more damage. The path of banning guns will only change the tool they use to kill us. They really don't care how they do it as long as we die. Taking the guns away will not stop or slow them down despite how hard we try.

 

[Ketchum]

All day you have ridiculed peopl who believe that you and other liberals want to take away guns. (see cartoon) You advocate banning AR15s then you snicker at people who claim that liberals want to ban AR15s. Not sure what point you are trying to make.

The study to which you linked has this nugget:

Australia's 1996 National Firearms Agreement (which outright confiscated 650,000 guns, in addition to imposing background checks and licensing rules) is perhaps the best-studied of any of the international laws. Santaella-Tenorio et al. reviewed eight studies on it, most of which found clear and strong evidence of a reduction in firearm deaths after the law's passage.

Our fears of gun confiscation are very real. Obama and other Dems have hinted that they wish to go this route. Belittling those that disagree with you without offering convincing counter arguments leads nowhere.

I haven't ridiculed people all day.

I strongly disagree with a few of you in this thread that I believe to be too wrapped up in boogeyman complex related to guns. Stubborn to the bone. No ability to budge even a bit.

I believe the victims of these crimes deserve better than bitter inaction.

 

[Ketchum]

I have now realized you have very little knowledge of firearms in general so that leaves you at a huge disadvantage when discussing the issue. That is not a low blow or shot at you just the reality. There has been less than five instances that I have found in research that show the use of a fully automatic gun being used. Two of those were used by law enforcement and one instance I believe was during the Miami drug shoot outs in the 80's. So in summation we can let that argument go as it is a non issue and next to impossible to get your hands on one much less the extraordinary cost to buy one if you find one available. So let the automatic weapon of mass destruction go as you sound and are uneducated on that weapon and regulations with it.

On to semi-auto weapons. Majority of pistols in the public and on the market place today are semi-auto. They come in many different calibers including yes 9mm, 45, 40, 357, 38 and .22 to name a few. These are all the same guns minus the caliber they were built in. I am sure that the 9mm is the choice of mass murders as it is the most readily available pistol and ammo. It is also cheap when comparing the pistol and ammo combination. But lets go ahead and ban it because it is used in mass murders often. So what gun steps into its place? The next cheapest and readily available pistol.

While we are at it lets look at the bad name given to the AR. Sure the name itself does it a disservice. Assault Rifle. It just sounds bad. It is no different then the pistols mentioned above outside of round carrying capacity, in that every time you pull the trigger a round is fired. So when you pull the trigger one and only one round is fired. Same as all the pistols above. Positives of the AR over a Pistol in the Orlando Shooting would be carrying capacity of the rounds. You can get say four 30 round mags and fire 120 bullets in the air. One magazine starts in rifle and 3 on person with 3 different reloads a you can do some damage in short time. You give me one of the pistols say the .357 and I can do just as much damage in just about 10-15 seconds longer time frame. A bunch can happen in 10-15 seconds but lets not act like the AR 15 a killing machine compared to a semi-auto pistol. It is really has one advantage and that is speed but that advantage is not that huge in the grand scheme of things. But it is an advantage none the less.

The AR is also more accurate at longer ranges compare to a pistol but I don't see that being an advantage inside a nightclub as it is pretty close quarters situation. In s shootout in an outdoor setting huge advantage AR and its not even close. The advantage of the better accuracy is due to the longer barrel but the big disadvantage of the longer barrel is being able to conceal along with close quarter aiming and firing. I would personally take a pistol and pistols only to a setting like Orlando as I know I could do more damage in roughly the same amount of time with at pistol. But what do I know I am not mental or a terrorist so I don't see life the same way as them.

Ketch I am all about the discussion but I really think it does a huge disservice to the complete situation saying "guns" when the reason for the killings was someones religious beliefs. I agree that if AR weren't readily available he wouldn't have used them in the shooting but you hopefully agree that he would have used a bomb or some other means to to do the same or possibly more damage. The path of banning guns will only change the tool they use to kill us. They really don't care how they do it as long as we die. Taking the guns away will not stop or slow them down despite how hard we try.

k

 

[utfan101]

Ali's views on race were not exactly in line with the version promoted at his funeral. Hate to bring truth to a fawning but superficial assessment of Ali, but this from the Boston Globe lase week (sorry if already posted in the lengthy thread above):

In a wide-ranging 1968 interview with Bud Collins, the storied Boston Globe sports reporter, Ali insisted that it was as unnatural to expect blacks and whites to live together as it would be to expect humans to live with wild animals. “I don’t hate rattlesnakes, I don’t hate tigers — I just know I can’t get along with them,” he said. “I don’t want to try to eat with them or sleep with them.”

 

[-Kirby-]

Jumping in late here, but I want to make sure you're not implying that an AR-15 is a weapon of war. It is not. It is a regular rifle. That it is styled like a military rifle does not mean that it performs like one.

I'm not trying to be condescending, but it's pretty clear that much of the left is extremely ignorant when it comes to firearms and the current regulations.

 

[Ketchum]

Jumping in late here, but I want to make sure you're not implying that an AR-15 is a weapon of war. It is not. It is a regular rifle. That it is styled like a military rifle does not mean that it performs like one.

The weapon serves no purpose but to slaughter people. We're not going to pretend otherwise.

Some added reading on how folks make this weapon even more dangerous... legally.

Stay woke.

 

[utfan101]

And, as for guns, they are inanimate. There is no such thing as "gun violence". Root causes are important but ignored to appear politically hip. Here, the root cause is religious zealotry, not guns. So tragic, but even more tragic to mislead about the root cause of what happened.

 

[Ketchum]

I'm not trying to be condescending, but it's pretty clear that much of the left is extremely ignorant when it comes to firearms and the current regulations.

I don't mean to sound condescending, but the inability to have any conversations about this subject material without you being able to turn it into a pure political discussion makes you look very ignorant.

 

[-Kirby-]

I have now realized you have very little knowledge of firearms in general so that leaves you at a huge disadvantage when discussing the issue. That is not a low blow or shot at you just the reality. There has been less than five instances that I have found in research that show the use of a fully automatic gun being used. Two of those were used by law enforcement and one instance I believe was during the Miami drug shoot outs in the 80's. So in summation we can let that argument go as it is a non issue and next to impossible to get your hands on one much less the extraordinary cost to buy one if you find one available. So let the automatic weapon of mass destruction go as you sound and are uneducated on that weapon and regulations with it.

On to semi-auto weapons. Majority of pistols in the public and on the market place today are semi-auto. They come in many different calibers including yes 9mm, 45, 40, 357, 38 and .22 to name a few. These are all the same guns minus the caliber they were built in. I am sure that the 9mm is the choice of mass murders as it is the most readily available pistol and ammo. It is also cheap when comparing the pistol and ammo combination. But lets go ahead and ban it because it is used in mass murders often. So what gun steps into its place? The next cheapest and readily available pistol.

While we are at it lets look at the bad name given to the AR. Sure the name itself does it a disservice. Assault Rifle. It just sounds bad. It is no different then the pistols mentioned above outside of round carrying capacity, in that every time you pull the trigger a round is fired. So when you pull the trigger one and only one round is fired. Same as all the pistols above. Positives of the AR over a Pistol in the Orlando Shooting would be carrying capacity of the rounds. You can get say four 30 round mags and fire 120 bullets in the air. One magazine starts in rifle and 3 on person with 3 different reloads a you can do some damage in short time. You give me one of the pistols say the .357 and I can do just as much damage in just about 10-15 seconds longer time frame. A bunch can happen in 10-15 seconds but lets not act like the AR 15 a killing machine compared to a semi-auto pistol. It is really has one advantage and that is speed but that advantage is not that huge in the grand scheme of things. But it is an advantage none the less.

The AR is also more accurate at longer ranges compare to a pistol but I don't see that being an advantage inside a nightclub as it is pretty close quarters situation. In s shootout in an outdoor setting huge advantage AR and its not even close. The advantage of the better accuracy is due to the longer barrel but the big disadvantage of the longer barrel is being able to conceal along with close quarter aiming and firing. I would personally take a pistol and pistols only to a setting like Orlando as I know I could do more damage in roughly the same amount of time with at pistol. But what do I know I am not mental or a terrorist so I don't see life the same way as them.

Ketch I am all about the discussion but I really think it does a huge disservice to the complete situation saying "guns" when the reason for the killings was someones religious beliefs. I agree that if AR weren't readily available he wouldn't have used them in the shooting but you hopefully agree that he would have used a bomb or some other means to to do the same or possibly more damage. The path of banning guns will only change the tool they use to kill us. They really don't care how they do it as long as we die. Taking the guns away will not stop or slow them down despite how hard we try.

I agree with virtually everything you said, except one thing. The "AR" in "AR15" doesn't stand for "Assault Rifle." It stands for "Armalite Rifle." I just wanted to debunk a myth I frequently here from some of the ignorant anti-gun crowd.

I haven't ridiculed people all day.

I strongly disagree with a few of you in this thread that I believe to be too wrapped up in boogeyman complex related to guns. Stubborn to the bone. No ability to budge even a bit.

I believe the victims of these crimes deserve better than bitter inaction.

Boogeyman complex? Didn't you yourself advocate confiscation in this thread?

 

[streettopeschel]

I haven't ridiculed people all day.

I strongly disagree with a few of you in this thread that I believe to be too wrapped up in boogeyman complex related to guns. Stubborn to the bone. No ability to budge even a bit.

I believe the victims of these crimes deserve better than bitter inaction.

Agreed. Hopefully the administration will do something to address Islamic terrorism. Not. Holding. Breath.

 

[Ketchum]

And, as for guns, they are inanimate. There is no such thing as "gun violence". Root causes are important but ignored to appear politically hip. Here, the root cause is religious zealotry, not guns. So tragic, but even more tragic to mislead about the root cause of what happened.

There's more going on than religious zealotry. Save me the tragic rhetoric if you can't have a two-dimensional conversation.

 

[CS]

The weapon serves no purpose but to slaughter people. We're not going to pretend otherwise.

Some added reading on how folks make this weapon even more dangerous... legally.

Stay woke.

Wow. You are completely clueless. You are afraid of pieces of plastic that surround what is an otherwise ordinary rifle. I'm sure you agree with Carolyn McCarthy about shoulder things that go up.

(As an aside, you're way too old and white to say "stay woke." Makes you sound like a complete tool.)

 

[CS]

Remember that time @Ketchum booted threads because of political talking points? Lulz.

 

[-Kirby-]

I don't mean to sound condescending, but the inability to have any conversations about this subject material without you being able to turn it into a pure political discussion makes you look very ignorant.

Bringing up constitutional rights is turning things political?

 

[Ketchum]

With all due respect, I'm done discussing Orlando and guns in this thread.

Gonna get out and live a little.

 

[CS]

I don't mean to sound condescending, but the inability to have any conversations about this subject material without you being able to turn it into a pure political discussion makes you look very ignorant.

Man, Geoff. You have massive blind spots. One guy is looking massively ignorant in this thread, and it's you.

 

[-Kirby-]

With all due respect, I'm done discussing Orlando and guns in this thread.

Gonna get out and live a little.

lulz

Probably the best decision you've made so far today.

 

[Ketchum]

Man, Geoff. You have massive blind spots. One guy is looking massively ignorant in this thread, and it's you.

 

[Ketchum]

lulz

Probably the best decision you've made so far today.

Indeed.

 

[Bassinhorn]

That was quite a rant and I respect you writing it all out.

You took a lot of my thoughts and ran wildly out of bounds with them. For instance, I didn't say someone should be hired before Augie was dismissed.

I said a full plan needs to be in place before a single card is exposed.

I've not said this hiring process is failed. I said it's clear that Texas went into the process without a full plan and it has slightly paid for it as a byproduct.

alright, I can admit I may have misunderstood your "no plan" stance a little. I did kinda run all over the place there. I've never hired a D1 baseball coach but I can't imagine that whatever plan I'd put together didn't accept the possibility that some of my top targets may not be interested in coming to Texas. You're not a fan of the timing of opening the position when it occurred. Fair enough, but I don't think it matters one iota to who ends up being the coach. Coaches will say they are staying until they aren't. If the coach ultimately decides not to come here, it's not due to some failed plan by Texas. I do believe there is a plan/process to this. You have other information that says it's just a one day at time, fly by the seat of the pants kinda deal. If that's the case, we'll be lucky to land anyone of significance and I'll agree it was a failed process. I don't mind exposing a few cards up on the front end. I don't think there is only 1 or 2 guys that can fill the spot and do a heck of a job. Hell the guy at Dallas Baptist would probably crush it here if given the opportunity.
I did read all the other points. Nice way to wrap it up with an Ali quote.

 

[CPHornfan]

I don't mean to sound condescending, but the inability to have any conversations about this subject material without you being able to turn it into a pure political discussion makes you look very ignorant.

Just ignore him. He accused me of being against the 2nd amendment when i agree and support the statement you made below:

QUOTE="Ketchum, post: 6217413, member: 20"]I'm not anti-gun at all. Not even a little bit. However, I am anti-weapons of mass destruction being easily available to any ordinary Joe.[/QUOTE]

 

[-Kirby-]

Just ignore him. He accused me of being against the 2nd amendment when i agree and support the statement you made below:

QUOTE="Ketchum, post: 6217413, member: 20"]I'm not anti-gun at all. Not even a little bit. However, I am anti-weapons of mass destruction being easily available to any ordinary Joe.

You said you were in favor of banning semi-automatic weapons. You are not an advocate for the 2nd Amendment if that is your stance. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying, and if that's the case, then I apologize.

 

[Victor St Claire]

k

One letter more then I thought I would get. Carry on. You are way out of your element. Should we ban your wife's semi-auto pistol or is it not a "weapon of mass destruction"?