Buddy Hix

It would seem to reason that if arming teachers had the intended outcome of deterring shootings at schools that the perps would just then pick a mall, park, etc. where there isn't an armed deterrent. How it isn't obvious that this solution is ridiculous and simply a bandaid is beyond reason. Using the the same flawed logic that arming teachers is the answer only serves to bring about the arming of every citizen, which is exactly what the NRA wants.

We do have a necessity for guns, I certainly don't bow hunt as often as I hunt with a rifle or shotgun. But we limit who can have access to that option. It's a chicken and egg issue as far as crime goes, if there was a program introduced to lessen the number of guns on the streets the need to feel protected by having one would decrease. Restricting access and implementing a buy back program would do a lot imo.

I believe the correlation between number of guns and gun violence is well documented. If you'd spent as much time searching Google for that relationship as you did typing that question you'd have your evidence.

As a Canadian who is a card carry Conservative and gun owner I feel the pro gun crowd in this thread are absolute lunatics and are the main reason your country will never move past this problem. The reason your country has so many shootings is because your country has so many guns. Period. End of story. Having more hoops to jump through in order to be a gun owner and restrictions on what type of gun one can own as well as restrictions on how and where you can take your gun reduces the amount of guns purchased, which in turn reduces gun violence. Arming teachers (lmfao), needing guns to keep you safe (lol) and every other moronic statement like that is not addressing the root cause of the problem...which is too many guns. Instead of the 2nd amendment/pro gunners racking their brains for scenarios and reasons to keep adding more guns, why don't you try and figure out a way to reduce the number?

I thought and still think the move was aggressive. I can't tell from your incoherent post if you agree. Good point about the team showing growth before the coach can.

I, and I'm sure a few others, made this point last night. One of the biggest areas I would like to see growth from McD is in terms of being aggressive. That feels weird to say about a coach who benched his starter in the middle of a playoff run for a rookie QB but it rings true to me. McD, and maybe Dennison contributed, ran a very conservative offense. Punting in OT was the most egregious example but there were many more. Sure, personnel plays a role in that, but Foles isn't Brady...and neither is Burton for that matter.

Hahaha NE got screwed again, love it

McD punts there 99% of the time

BB just said he wasn't good enough

If I'm NE I put Butler in

No way Brady wins again down 10 in the second half. I refuse to accept that.

Hahaha good to see NE get worked...that was not a good catch

It's not a catch. But wouldn't it be great to see NE get screwed for once?

Eagles O is killing Patricia

JT began his solo career at a festival in Toronto I went to in 2001. Rolling Stones ACDC Rush Guess Who JT? Poor guy got pelted with water bottles. But he kept with it and made a ton of dough. Not a fan at all but I give the kid credit.

That's too bad. I hope Eric enjoys his retirement and lives a long healthy life.

If Foles plays like that again I think the Eagles win it. Big "if" though...

Foles looked awesome, tough to beat that team when they get good QB play. i really wanted to see a Brees Brady SB, but this seems like a great matchup too.

I was watching highlights of Jackson yesterday actually and would totally be on board with nabbing him. Lamar looks like Vick 2.0 and that man was a dangerous weapon in Atlanta. Jackson has the same delivery of the ball, tight and on a frozen rope.

I didn't want to see Marrone at the Super Bowl. Another great comeback. I still love football and appreciate the greatness of Brady. It reminds me of Montana. I could watch either play all day.

Yeah, Zay had a horrible season. Maybe with a different OC and QB he can become a decent player. Dawkins played well for us though.

My initial feeling is we just hired a run heavy, conservative coach, not impressed. But the guy was born in my area so I am willing to give him a shot.

I need to drop some pounds too, that is my goal for this offseason.

Agree with all of your thoughts. I am excited to see if Beane and McD can keep this thing rolling in the right direction, but in order for that to happen I feel McD needs to grow as a coach. McD seems to be doing great at getting the guys ready to play and instilling a positive culture, and not too well at game management. I think it will be interesting to see what McD does with Dennison. In addition to game management issues I think McD allowed his O coach to call plays like it is 1990, and I think he needs to take ownership of the decision to move forward. If Dennsion is back it may be an indicator that McD is content running a WC offense, which will further demonstrate his old school approach. Maybe turning the roster over and adding a lot of talent combined with the improved culture and structure will be enough to get us to be contenders despite the tired coaching philosophy, but I would prefer to move the offense into this decade.

Cheers buddy, good luck next week! Maybe next year the Bills will give the Pats a run for the AFCE.