LA Grant

DC Tom is attempting to say that the amount of shootings this year are not a problem because he disagrees with "mass" and "normal." I'm saying, here is a well-compiled list of shootings from this year. Can we agree that this is a problem with available solutions that would prevent these? Can we agree that it is possible and you are just stubbornly refusing to try to do anything besides name-call on your favorite Internet forum? It seems like DC Tom and those that agree with him would rather see gun violence continue unabated than ever consider they may be wrong. It's more important they feel right than to be right.

The plan is to agree that guns are a problem and that there are solutions. If it sounds easy, well, yeah, it should be easy. But unfortunately we live in a society where disagreement means gridlock means nothing changes. Look how hard so many of you are fighting against stronger gun restrictions, despite how common-sense it is.

Wrong. Again, it is black & white: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 Your only argument is to try and dismiss and argue these down and say they're somehow irrelevant because there were also a lot of shootings last year. For you, that's enough of an argument that we should just ignore it and do nothing. That is not rational, that's idiotic. From you, I would expect nothing less.

That's not what I'm arguing with you about. I know the argument you want to have is to quibble about the definition of "mass." You also want to argue about the definition of "normal." Basically you want to argue semantics so you can continue to dodge the larger point. I called you out on that on Page 2, you had no response.

So you're saying — because some stranger on the Internet didn't give you solutions on a nice enough plate, it's not worth considering? It's not worth doing? It's not worth reading up on? Your solution is, what? "Stop whining"? "Get over it"? "Well, nothing can be done about guns, guys, LA Grant on the TwoBillsDrive sub-forum didn't adequately convince me in a single post that doing something is better than doing nothing. Shootings that are clearly preventable will just happen forever and there's nothing we can do." What an entitled and lazy attitude you have here. Shame on you.

You are by far one of the dumbest posters on this board, and that's saying something, because a lot of people around here can barely read and write. You bring less than nothing to any argument, yet you contribute so frequently! You can be dumb or you can be annoying, but DC Tom, do you really need to be both? I understand you must be lonely but maybe you can just shout nonsense out the window for awhile like crazy old men used to do before the Internet.

I mean, we can go march if you want, let me know your schedule. It's not about me, I'm not asking you to vote for me, I'm just some idiot arguing on the internet like anyone. If more people agreed about gun control, we'd find more solutions. ExiledInIllinois just posted a story about Republicans in Congress blocking gun violence research. Just getting more research and considering it more would be one step. Guns are a big sprawling problem, but there are steps that can be taken. If you're expecting some magic wand fix tonight, well, I hate to say it guys but we're probably not going to change the world tonight on the TwoBillsDrive sub-forum. But I have enough optimism in people in general (not a lot but enough) that I think if people talk and consider it, they might come to a pretty obvious and common sense realization: that guns are obviously a major problem and should be addressed.

The solution is to consider gun control as positive and necessary. That's it. If you agree that's worth pursuing, that's all we can do at this moment. I mean, you can call representatives, I guess, or there are plenty of ways to be an active citizen. But the issue is not having consensus that guns are part of the problem. Agreeing that it's too easy to get guns, that gun control needs to be much stronger, and that this is a real problem — just finding agreement is the solution.

You heard a story about a home being invaded and your house had a break-in when you weren't there. So now you have guns and look at your neighbors suspiciously enough to call them "animals." Dude, consider the possibility that you are the dangerous one in your situation. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know you, don't lose your ****. I'm not saying you're going to kill anybody but listen to how you sound — like you're capable of killing someone if you get scared enough. In your imagination, a burglar is a group of powerful criminals who are dead set on a mission to terrorize you because they really want your TV. Okay, fine. But what if a drunk teenager tries to break into your house at night for a stupid prank and gets murdered because you're already jumpy? Is that impossible? Maybe it's impossible because you have good self control and you would never let that happen. But imagine someone in a similar situation who is not as level-headed as yourself. Are all burglars deserving of death? Even if you have the gall to say "yes, anyone dumb enough to burglarize deserves to die so I can protect myself" — less gun control means it's also more likely that your boogeyman has a gun. "They'd find a way to get guns anyway and now they have a gun and I don't." That's so many steps of delusional paranoid hypotheticals. Home invasions are generally unlikely, statistically. The Bureau of Justice has stats that show it at <1% of homicides per year. I'm not saying home invasion is impossible, I am saying it is not a good enough justification considering the consequences from having guns widely accessible leads to Sandy Hook and the countless other tragedies. If you're so worried about your house being broken into, there are other ways to keep it safe. The focus should be to make it less likely for anyone to have a gun. It is possible. We as a country have not tried to make it harder across the board for everyone to have a gun and that's where we need to be thinking.

You don't disagree with everybody; plenty of people agree with you, anyway. You're not as unique as you wish. Anyway so if we both agree there are over 300 mass shootings this year — exactly what is being misrepresented? Are there not over 300 mass shootings? Then what are you talking about? If you're saying we shouldn't worry about 300 shootings this year because we had as many shootings last year — how the hell is that an argument against gun control?

Wrong, I called you a thought leader. I place blame with the NRA and their supporters. I place blame with attitudes that allow support for the NRA. I think you are part of a number of factors that shape attitudes here, which is indisputably a conservative-leaning forum. The reason I included your name is to highlight the way you argue, which as you're demonstrating here, is to name-call, dismiss, ignore the larger point, and then proceed to arrogantly trout false information. If you've shown flexibility in considering your ability to be wrong, I haven't seen it (if it exists, include a link when you send the Christmas card so we can stay on topic). Here's what over 300 mass shootings means: http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 It's all laid out very simply with references and links to local news articles about each event right there. I'm not sure specifically which FBI statistics you're referring to but I am imagining you may be quibbling over the word "mass"? That's my only guess because this is black and white. That or you're just trying to prove me wrong in some way so you don't have to reckon with the larger point. I can't imagine any reason you'd try to argue with a straight face that the rate of mass shootings this year is "normal" except that maybe you're a sociopath.

If you took away name-calling I'm not sure you'd have a vocabulary. You've already demonstrated poor reading comprehension over 50,000 times.

Another day, another mass shooting. What will it take for this country to recognize it has a gun problem? It's going to take people who hate admitting they're wrong to admit they may be wrong about gun control. Obviously I never post in this subforum, I've checked enough times to know it's little more than an echo chamber for conservative talk radio points. DC Tom, LABillzFan, and the other thought leaders here slap each other on the back and never have to consider they may be wrong. Well, conservatives do an admirable job of stubbornly ignoring reality. I'll grant you that in general I think people only preach to the choir so I'm going to go against the grain and try to communicate to NRA sympathizers here. That's why I'm going to be blunt and straight to the point. If this post gets taken down or banned because I'm clearly posting when I'm angry, so be it. If you're an NRA supporter: these shootings are on YOU. That's right, you are implicit. Your actions are partly responsible for these tragedies. Your selfish, delusional, ignorant fantasies of being a cowboy hero have led to this current reality of America where mass shootings are becoming a daily occurrence. You are part of the problem that prevents gun legislation. And since there is no foreseeable opportunity for legislation and an end to the madness, at the very least, you should feel bad and consider changing your stupid views. This year alone, there have been more mass shootings than days in the year. These are not "isolated incidents" like the NRA likes to pretend. You need to take a long look in the mirror and realize how badly your attitudes affect the rest of the country. It's absurd how easily accessible weapons are available to psychopaths. Who's to blame for that? ... "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." Easily the dumbest defense. Guns kill people. None of these mass murders happen without the ease of guns. "If we outlawed guns, criminals would find a way to get them anyway." So instead let's make it easier for "them" to get them by having them widely available? How's that working out? The reality is, because gun manufacturers have made SO MANY of these portable death machines, OBVIOUSLY they will not go away overnight. But legislation is the first step; rooting them out is the second step. It's like saying that because withdrawals are bad, you should just keep doing heroin forever. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Where are all the good guys with guns then? You guys have been asleep at the wheel if you're supposed to be the ones preventing these. Nevermind that this quip doesn't sync up with reality at all; the amount of times a shooter has been stopped by an armed civilian have been so few that it's little more than an anomaly. Stats show it's far more likely that having a gun in your home makes it more likely for a gun death to occur in the home than it being used in a "positive" way, but I'm sure Obama just made up those stats to scare you, though. "It's a mental health issue." Hey good point, social services should be expanded in this country. Unfortunately that would mean higher taxes! Well, we know which segment of the population will be blocking any efforts to improve this then. Even if we did somehow improve access to mental health — which won't happen — the first realization people would come to would be "oh well obviously we should get rid of guns, that's an easy one." "The government fears armed citizens!" So incredibly delusional. The government taps all your communication, engages in drone warfare on a regular basis, etc. etc., but they're afraid of your sidearm? Get over yourself. "It's for protection!" It's for your absurd fantasies. Protect you from what, home invasion? Sorry, that's not nearly good enough of a justification. Guns are overwhelmingly used to attack, not defend. And your possessions are meaningless. Nobody wants to steal your DVD-VCR combo. "But the shooting today happened in California, which has stronger gun laws! See? Gun laws don't work!" The laws are not strong enough anywhere. Waiting periods, background checks, written tests. It's not enough. We need to get there on a nation-wide level because gun sales are still through the roof at gun shows and still pass state borders mostly with impunity. "Way to politicize a tragedy." If we can't talk about this now, then when? When it happens to someone you know? "But I like hunting!" At least this one is honest. The reality is your hobby sucks. If your daddy got you into hunting and that's how you bonded, your daddy sucks. Hunt with a bow & arrow, or a knife, or even a musket if you want. Go ahead and keep the muskets. ... If you're an NRA member and you read all this, you're probably pissed and looking to score points by somehow proving me wrong. Go ahead and shoot the messenger, I don't care. Call me whatever names you want, like that makes what I'm saying not true. Maybe in time you'll consider that these tragedies are preventable and that we need to at least "TRY" reducing access to guns. That does not happen until the NRA has less power in our government. And that doesn't happen until their base starts to turn on them; until gun sales stop GOING UP whenever there's a mass shooting. That's why I'm reaching out. The NRA needs to be recognized for what it is — an enabler of terrorism. We need to stop dancing around this hard truth just because we've been living the lie for so long. White male sociopaths with guns are terrorists, plain and simple. If you're a gun owner, if you're one of the fools that buys into the NRA rhetoric so they can keep making money off of your delusional and fearful fantasies, the best way to send your "thoughts and prayers" to the victims of these shootings would be to take your gun and shoot yourself. Go ahead and do it today, even. At least then the blood on your hands can be your own.

Even with a talented roster, it takes time for a new coaching staff to get settled in. You can see the relationship between scheme and players improve over the course of the year although its in fits and starts — defense last week against NE, offense this week, at least in the first half. Maybe if there were more coaching consistency the team wouldn't have had as many mistakes but you only make it worse by changing course again now. We'll see how this year ends up but I think Rex will be here a lot longer than Marrone was.

Even with a talented roster, it takes time for a new coaching staff to get settled in. You can see the relationship between scheme and players improve over the course of the year although its in fits and starts — defense last week against NE, offense this week, at least in the first half. They have a favorable stretch of opponents to end the season. I'm interested to see how they respond.

Nate Hackett. I've had it with that guy. He also looks like he gained a few pounds this year.

This could be due to coaching/play design.

Has the team played hard all 4 quarters in one game this year? It seems like they can give you 2 quarters, often not consecutively, but never 4.

There have been a lot of great punts over the years. Great times.

It's obvious to everyone in the world Tebow is gay except Tebow himself. I feel bad for him.

Unless the wheels completely fall off, there's a good core in place. Keep building on it.

Defense eliminates KC's run game and gets enough pressure on Alex Smith to limit their offense to ~13 points.

The fall guy is their lack of time together. Gotta give the nucleus of players + the coaching staff time to gel. It takes a little time. And also we need a better 2nd QB, better right side OL, and better LB. Other than that, it should just be... let's try again.

I don't mind taking a guy who failed, like RG3 or Kaep, as a #2, with a drafted QB at #3.

Interesting! Thanks for the insight.