• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

There appears to be a lot of people worked up over this:

www.cnn.com

Analysis: Why Joe Biden's fist bump with MBS was such a disaster

In the weeks leading up to President Joe Biden's trip to the Middle East, one question dominated: Would he meet with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman? And, if he did, what would his demeanor be?
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

It does seem to go contrary to his comments during the campaign. I do have to applaud the efforts to get more oil flowing in an effort to lower the cost of gas. If only there is a way to get more domestic or North American oil on the market... Maybe in a big pipe with Keystone on the side of it.
 
Not Surprising...

Fox has the details of the Indiana Shooting front and center. CNN you need to search for it. I guess they don't want the news to get out as an example of an armed civilian saving lives.

***BTW, this was yet another gun-free zone, but the person with the concealed carry permit is willing to take a risk to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6.
 
michaelskis said:
Not Surprising...

Fox has the details of the Indiana Shooting front and center. CNN you need to search for it. I guess they don't want the news to get out as an example of an armed civilian saving lives.

***BTW, this was yet another gun-free zone, but the person with the concealed carry permit is willing to take a risk to be judged by 12 than be carried by 6.
Click to expand...

A Google search of "Indiana shooter" for me pulled up AP and then CNN as top stories. On CNN's landing page, I saw it without scrolling. :scratchinghead: It's not their top story though - should it be?
 
The biased news is gonna play. The problem is of course is not how it was resolved, but how it started. A crazy man had access to guns he shouldn't have. Also, I'm assuming the guy who shot back had some kind of training. If the guy returning fire had no training we might have more dead and wounded. The solution to gun violence is not more guns.
 
DVD said:
The biased news is gonna play. The problem is of course is not how it was resolved, but how it started. A crazy man had access to guns he shouldn't have. Also, I'm assuming the guy who shot back had some kind of training. If the guy returning fire had no training we might have more dead and wounded. The solution to gun violence is not more guns.
Click to expand...
This.
 
DVD said:
The biased news is gonna play. The problem is of course is not how it was resolved, but how it started. A crazy man had access to guns he shouldn't have. Also, I'm assuming the guy who shot back had some kind of training. If the guy returning fire had no training we might have more dead and wounded. The solution to gun violence is not more guns.
Click to expand...
It is interesting though that one case of this, versus 20 cases of other scenarios, and yet we continually hear that this is the way to go. Please ignore Uvalde, which clearly shows even LOTS of trained people with guns isn't better than one deranged person with a gun.
 
Hink said:
It is interesting though that one case of this, versus 20 cases of other scenarios, and yet we continually hear that this is the way to go. Please ignore Uvalde, which clearly shows even LOTS of trained people with guns isn't better than one deranged person with a gun.
Click to expand...
And this.
 
dw914er said:
A Google search of "Indiana shooter" for me pulled up AP and then CNN as top stories. On CNN's landing page, I saw it without scrolling. :scratchinghead: It's not their top story though - should it be?
Click to expand...

When I go the CNN page directly, it wasn’t on the front page at all. I had to do a search. If this had a different ending, it would be bold letters across the top of the page.

Reality is this story does not meet their anti-gun narrative so they burry it. Reality is a Good Samaritan took action when it was most needed to save peoples lives.

Hink said:
It is interesting though that one case of this, versus 20 cases of other scenarios, and yet we continually hear that this is the way to go. Please ignore Uvalde, which clearly shows even LOTS of trained people with guns isn't better than one deranged person with a gun.
Click to expand...

Don’t ignore Uvalde! If anything it shows that the police won’t always be there to stop an shooter. What if there was a properly trained member of admin or even a janitor? How many lives could have been saved before he got into the classrooms? I support the police and many of them that I interact with support the people arming themselves.

As for saying those officers isn’t better than the shooter, how many did they kill? How many did the shooter kill. You and 10,000% in the reality that they failed to do what they should have done. But what did the principal do? Nothing, because laws say he can’t protect those kids.

DVD said:
The biased news is gonna play. The problem is of course is not how it was resolved, but how it started. A crazy man had access to guns he shouldn't have. Also, I'm assuming the guy who shot back had some kind of training. If the guy returning fire had no training we might have more dead and wounded. The solution to gun violence is not more guns.
Click to expand...
You are correct and we need to find a better way to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. You used the word “Crazy” so does that mean that you support the idea of mental health and somehow using that as a mechanism to prevent those with issues from getting guns and getting them help? This would be instead of preventing good people from being able to get weapons to protect themselves?



Really is violent crime is at record rates and things are getting worse. We need to find a way to keep the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, while still allowing good people to protect themselves and those around them.
 
Last edited:
...not to sound spooky but some say our gun violence is chicks come roosting from our basically violence-based stance on the dusty streets of the global village.
 
michaelskis said:
When I go the CNN page directly, it wasn’t on the front page at all. I had to do a search. If this had a different ending, it would be bold letters across the top of the page.

Reality is this story does not meet their anti-gun narrative so they burry it. Reality is a Good Samaritan took action when it was most needed to save peoples lives.



Don’t ignore Uvalde! If anything it shows that the police won’t always be there to stop an shooter. What if there was a properly trained member of admin or even a janitor? How many lives could have been saved before he got into the classrooms? I support the police and many of them that I interact with support the people arming themselves.

As for saying those officers isn’t better than the shooter, how many did they kill? How many did the shooter kill. You and 10,000% in the reality that they failed to do what they should have done. But what did the principal do? Nothing, because laws say he can’t protect those kids.


You are correct and we need to find a better way to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. You used the word “Crazy” so does that mean that you support the idea of mental health and somehow using that as a mechanism to prevent those with issues from getting guns and getting them help? This would be instead of preventing good people from being able to get weapons to protect themselves?



Really is violent crime is at record rates and things are getting worse. We need to find a way to keep the guns out of the hands of those who should not have them, while still allowing good people to protect themselves and those around them.
Click to expand...
Arming teachers, principals, and others in a school will do little to protect kids against an AR-15 and a person who wants to use it against humanity. More guns will never be the answer.

In the best case scenario, which is clearly what Indiana worked out to be, the "good guy with a gun" shot and killed the "bad guy with a gun" quickly, and likely before any additional bloodshed. The funny part is that if our laws potentially kept that bad guy from getting a gun, we wouldn't need to arm our teachers, have our kids do active shooter drills, and so on and so on. That guy in Indiana also wouldn't have had to killed a person. I am doubtful that he feels good about taking another human's life. Even if that human is evil. That is a heavy burden we seem to be okay putting on regular people. Or teachers. Or children.

We are so desensitized to the absolute terror that we see every day, that we actually want to create prisons for our children before trying anything related to fewer guns in our society. Every data point, every other country, all logic says that we should ban LOTS of guns, and we would see less shootings, less death, and less terror for our children to bare... yet here we stand wishing there were MORE guns to protect us...
 
Hink said:
Arming teachers, principals, and others in a school will do little to protect kids against an AR-15 and a person who wants to use it against humanity. More guns will never be the answer.

In the best case scenario, which is clearly what Indiana worked out to be, the "good guy with a gun" shot and killed the "bad guy with a gun" quickly, and likely before any additional bloodshed. The funny part is that if our laws potentially kept that bad guy from getting a gun, we wouldn't need to arm our teachers, have our kids do active shooter drills, and so on and so on. That guy in Indiana also wouldn't have had to killed a person. I am doubtful that he feels good about taking another human's life. Even if that human is evil. That is a heavy burden we seem to be okay putting on regular people. Or teachers. Or children.

We are so desensitized to the absolute terror that we see every day, that we actually want to create prisons for our children before trying anything related to fewer guns in our society. Every data point, every other country, all logic says that we should ban LOTS of guns, and we would see less shootings, less death, and less terror for our children to bare... yet here we stand wishing there were MORE guns to protect us...
Click to expand...

Few thoughts. First your post contradicts itself. In Indiana, an armed citizen with a canceled pistol took out a guy with 2 AR-15s and a pistol. It can, and does work.

Second, not everyone should be armed and I firmly believe that there should be additional training associated with carrying a pistol above and beyond what we currently have. I can almost guarantee that in every gun-free zone in the US, there is someone who has proper training and a pistol, but does not carry it because it is a gun free zone. It is not more guns, it is granting someone the ability to defend themselves and those around them from people who don't follow the rules. I know one of the teachers at my kids school that I have seen at the local gun range that is phenominal marksman, have gone through the legal and other classes to conceal carry, and wishes they could have the ability to protect himself as well as the kids in his class. I wish he had the ability too.

I have made to secret that I am in full support of finding ways to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. But both sides of the political spectrum rather have an extremist mentality on this issue and neither will win, and in fact we all lose.
 
Look, it's great the guy in Indiana took out the shooter. But the reality is most people (including trained police) are bad shots with a hand gun. And even if you are a great shot you have no idea if you'll be a great shot when the other guy is firing, people are dying and you're amped up. He got lucky in that he hit the shooter instead of another innocent bystander. That happens. A lot. But I guess that's just the price of "freedom" right?
 
MD Planner said:
Look, it's great the guy in Indiana took out the shooter. But the reality is most people (including trained police) are bad shots with a hand gun. And even if you are a great shot you have no idea if you'll be a great shot when the other guy is firing, people are dying and you're amped up. He got lucky in that he hit the shooter instead of another innocent bystander. That happens. A lot. But I guess that's just the price of "freedom" right?
Click to expand...
Do you have a better alternative to keep people safe that is actually tangible? Because banning guns isn't working.
 
michaelskis said:
You are correct and we need to find a better way to keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them. You used the word “Crazy” so does that mean that you support the idea of mental health and somehow using that as a mechanism to prevent those with issues from getting guns and getting them help? This would be instead of preventing good people from being able to get weapons to protect themselves?
Click to expand...
I used the word crazy because you have to be crazy to decide to kill random people. It doesn't matter what weapon you use. We all know what laws need to be put in place. We just need to stop voting in the same jerks and sidetracking good gun laws with bullshit like taking away rights from the mentally ill. I'll bet there is nothing to show this guy was crazy. Never committed or diagnosed.

Remember Uvalde, the police were there and didn't stop the shooter. I don't expect the police to be there when crime happens. I do expect them to respond if they are.

MD Planner said:
Look, it's great the guy in Indiana took out the shooter. But the reality is most people (including trained police) are bad shots with a hand gun. And even if you are a great shot you have no idea if you'll be a great shot when the other guy is firing, people are dying and you're amped up. He got lucky in that he hit the shooter instead of another innocent bystander. That happens. A lot. But I guess that's just the price of "freedom" right?
Click to expand...
The good Samaritan did not get lucky. He fired 10 shots. He was lucky no one else was between him and the shooter.

When it comes down to it I'm open to any and all solutions. It's not just one solution like limit access to mentally ill people. If someone wants to get rid of the 2A, I'm okay with that. If someone wants to read it literally and go that way I'm okay with that too. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." I think the courts interpreted this wrong, but who am I to second guess all those smart judges with a political agenda even back then. I think we forget that the country had no army and didn't really want one because that would create power in a centralized government. So they wanted each state to form a militia. Each state has one, it's called the guard. So beyond a couple hunting rifles, WTF do we need guns for? Do you participate in professional target shooting or does it just make you feel "safe". I think they have pills for that now. If not just carry a baseball bat around.

I also have problems with guns that are designed for the purpose of making people feel good. An AR-15 has no hunting purpose and I suppose you could use it for target practice, but it's really just for alpha neckbeards to feel like soldiers. Want to be a soldier? Enlist. I played with much bigger and badder guns then most people and I was in the Navy.

So I'm done ranting. Everyone go call their congressmen for the hundredth time and ask for real gun reform or vote them out of office. I would, but mine is running solo because the other candidate missed by a handful of signatures. Gotta love challenging signatures every Fing time because you can't stand competition.
 
Hink said:
Huh? Is it not working because we aren't doing it?
Click to expand...
I am sorry, you are correct and I should have been more specific in my statement.

Restricting access to guns for those who have gone through proper training and background checks is not working. These are commonly known as gun free zones, it is also the place where most mass shootings occur.
 
michaelskis said:
I am sorry, you are correct and I should have been more specific in my statement.

Restricting access to guns for those who have gone through proper training and background checks is not working. These are commonly known as gun free zones, it is also the place where most mass shootings occur.
Click to expand...
Yikes, that sounds like a Trump / NRA talking point if I have ever heard one. I assume you are using a SUPER broad definition of "gun-free zones" like a mall where a sign is posted as "no guns allowed!". Or like most public or private places in the United States, including Waffle House. Or are you just regurgitating something you heard once without actually looking up the data? Or are you defining "most" in some unique way that I don't even know about.

The details and definitions matter. And if you cite the Lott study, we both know that isn't factually accurate, so please just don't cite it, as it has been proven false A LOT since it was published and updated by the author.

Gun-free zones have nothing to do with banning guns. Nor do they actually relate to policy that would regulate guns. They are a "don't step on the grass" measure that do nothing more than try and push back against people who feel the need to hold a gun tight to them at all times, even when it isn't for sport, which is the common claim for the need for many weapons.
 
michaelskis said:
I am sorry, you are correct and I should have been more specific in my statement.

Restricting access to guns for those who have gone through proper training and background checks is not working. These are commonly known as gun free zones, it is also the place where most mass shootings occur.
Click to expand...
It's not about gun free zones it's about gun free people. If someone is crazy enough to decide to shoot up a place they aren't going to care if it's gun free or not. The places that get shot up are places where people gather like malls or places where the person had a connection like schools or the workplace. Yep, most schools are gun free. Mostly because I don't expect my kid needs to pack heat during math class and I don't think a 45 is going to help teach my kid how to read. Go call your congressman again. We keep doing it, but nothing happens so vote the @sshole out.
 
Hink said:
Yikes, that sounds like a Trump / NRA talking point if I have ever heard one. I assume you are using a SUPER broad definition of "gun-free zones" like a mall where a sign is posted as "no guns allowed!". Or like most public or private places in the United States, including Waffle House. Or are you just regurgitating something you heard once without actually looking up the data? Or are you defining "most" in some unique way that I don't even know about.

The details and definitions matter. And if you cite the Lott study, we both know that isn't factually accurate, so please just don't cite it, as it has been proven false A LOT since it was published and updated by the author.

Gun-free zones have nothing to do with banning guns. Nor do they actually relate to policy that would regulate guns. They are a "don't step on the grass" measure that do nothing more than try and push back against people who feel the need to hold a gun tight to them at all times, even when it isn't for sport, which is the common claim for the need for many weapons.
Click to expand...

As I said it my other post, you are correct and I should have have picked a better word than "Ban" and should have gone with "Restrict".

My view on it is unless you have a metal detector, you should not prevent someone who has appropriate training and background check from concealed carrying. So places like federal buildings, court houses, airplanes, or similar locations where there are effective measures above and beyond a sticker on the door make sense to keep gun free. But reality is a sticker on a door is not going to stop a shooter. If anything, it is going to empower them because they will believe that they have a concentration of people who are unable to defend themselves.

If you can come up way an effective, and realistic way, to prevent people who want to do harm from entering these places, please let me know.

DVD said:
It's not about gun free zones it's about gun free people. If someone is crazy enough to decide to shoot up a place they aren't going to care if it's gun free or not. The places that get shot up are places where people gather like malls or places where the person had a connection like schools or the workplace. Yep, most schools are gun free. Mostly because I don't expect my kid needs to pack heat during math class and I don't think a 45 is going to help teach my kid how to read. Go call your congressman again. We keep doing it, but nothing happens so vote the @sshole out.
Click to expand...
Can you elaborate on gun free people? If is disarming everyone, what is your solution to rid everyone but the military and police of guns? More so, do you really think those who are out to commit crimes will turn their weapons in? No one has said anything about arming kids. That is a very bad idea and I don't think anyone would suggest it.
 
The sticker does nothing. I guess a cop could haul you out of McDonalds or some place with a sticker, but that's about it. I don't think most concealed carry people even stop to disarm when they go into the mall and I doubt someone just thinks, hey that place has a no guns sticker. I'll shoot up that place. They do it because there are a lot of people or they feel slighted because the hot dog on a stick lady wouldn't talk to them. I think we all agree the sticker thing is useless, just for different reasons. It's kind of like our politicians who say they represent you.
 
michaelskis said:
If you can come up way an effective, and realistic way, to prevent people who want to do harm from entering these places, please let me know.
Click to expand...
Make it substantially harder to get the gun in the first place. Then tax it and regulate it like a car. Require insurance. Etc., etc. I mean I think the ideas are out there. The problem is the unwillingness to try them because, "THEY ARE TAKING OUR GUNS!".

The problem isn't the lack of potential solutions, it is people who think guns are more important than children's lives. That more guns in the hands of people somehow makes the world safer, even though there is NO data on earth that supports that. The fact that as the most greatest bestest amazingness country in the free world, we have a problem that no other nation does. Unless you count Chile... and then, well that isn't exactly a glowing comparison.

We have lots of realistic, effective means to try. You will say they aren't realistic because you don't want to give up your guns. That is fine, but own it. It isn't because there aren't rational, reasonable solutions that would make this better quickly. We just won't do them.
 
Hink said:
Make it substantially harder to get the gun in the first place. Then tax it and regulate it like a car. Require insurance. Etc., etc. I mean I think the ideas are out there. The problem is the unwillingness to try them because, "THEY ARE TAKING OUR GUNS!".

The problem isn't the lack of potential solutions, it is people who think guns are more important than children's lives. That more guns in the hands of people somehow makes the world safer, even though there is NO data on earth that supports that. The fact that as the most greatest bestest amazingness country in the free world, we have a problem that no other nation does. Unless you count Chile... and then, well that isn't exactly a glowing comparison.

We have lots of realistic, effective means to try. You will say they aren't realistic because you don't want to give up your guns. That is fine, but own it. It isn't because there aren't rational, reasonable solutions that would make this better quickly. We just won't do them.
Click to expand...
Do you want to debate the topic at hand or keep going back to my incorrect use of the word ban?

If you could prove that all the bad guys will give up there guns, then I would be more than happy to give up everything but my bird hunting shot gun and my deer hunting rifle.

As for the argument about children's lives, are you saying that gun-free zones are more important than children's lives. How many mass shootings have been at schools that allow guns, and yes, there are schools that allow guns.
 
Sadly these are all faulty arguments.

1. You having a gun is just giving you a false sense of safety. If someone wanted to kill you it would happen. Plus I would normally say how often have you been in a situation the required a gun, but it seems more and more that argument is being reduced. Every situation that required me to hold a gun was in the military.
2. People don't shoot up gun free zones because they are gun free. They do it because of some connection. It's either amount of people/damage or personal.
3. There were guns at Uvalde. Held by people trained to shoot guns. They didn't seem to stop the violence. Having guns there or not is not a big priority on the shooter's mind. Once a person decides to go on a rampage rational thought about hey I could get shot or go to jail no longer exists. The reason shooters don't shoot up guns stores, no one is there. I'm sure it also doesn't make headline news because it's not much of a story that one guy got killed in a gun store.
 
DVD said:
Sadly these are all faulty arguments.

1. You having a gun is just giving you a false sense of safety. If someone wanted to kill you it would happen. Plus I would normally say how often have you been in a situation the required a gun, but it seems more and more that argument is being reduced. Every situation that required me to hold a gun was in the military.
2. People don't shoot up gun free zones because they are gun free. They do it because of some connection. It's either amount of people/damage or personal.
3. There were guns at Uvalde. Held by people trained to shoot guns. They didn't seem to stop the violence. Having guns there or not is not a big priority on the shooter's mind. Once a person decides to go on a rampage rational thought about hey I could get shot or go to jail no longer exists. The reason shooters don't shoot up guns stores, no one is there. I'm sure it also doesn't make headline news because it's not much of a story that one guy got killed in a gun store.
Click to expand...

Once again, if you have a real solution that could actually be implemented that will keep us all safe, please share.

1) When I first started shooting, yea, I wasn't that good. But if someone wanted to take me, or my family out, it won't be an easy time for them. I assure you of that. There are a lot of people who don't put in the same amount of time at the range. That is why I think regular training must be a part of carrying a weapon.

2) In some cases I agree, there is a connection, but that is not the majority of cases. They look for concentrations of people were they believe they will be the only one with a weapon.

3) The police with guns showed up after the 911 call and the chain of command failed. The school resource officer passed the shooter as he was leaving the school. There was no one there in a preventative fashion that I can find.

As for no one is there... you haven't been to the 2 gun shops by my place on a Saturday. One in particular in the Town that I live is by far the busiest place in the community in Downtown on that day.


EDIT: This is what angers me so much about this topic. There are so many on the left that make ridiculous recommendations that will either do absolutely nothing to solve the problem, or demand things that not only will be impossible to implement (such as repealing the 2nd Amendment), it will actually make it harder for good people to defend themselves against bad people. I think that the legislation that was passed recently is a terrific step forward, but some of the stupid crap that the Democrats have been saying and the stupid crap that the Republicans have been responding with is not going to solve anything.

So no seriously, if you want to recommend real changes that will actually make people safer, then I am all ears. But do you actually believe that a sticker on a door is going to prevent someone from bring a gun into a building with the intent to do harm? Seriously, do you really believe that?
 
Last edited:
We all know the answer is incremental change to the point where access and keeping firearms is not for everyone. If we made drastic changes the the big guns owners would cry that we're violating their rights. My quick answer for now is grandfather the guns that are out there so we're not coming to take your guns. Limit fire arms that are a problem. That can be banning things like the AR-15 that is a common link to many of these shootings or limiting the ability of the fire arm by small capacity magazines or whatever. I would do both. Gun registry would be great. You want to own guns, get a license. Once you have a license update it once in a while to make sure you haven't gone crazy. Put in place some red flag laws. Got a The Facebook page that has hateful things. Flag. Yep, it's subjective, but it's gotta be done. We've all gone over the reasonable solutions. The answer goes back to what I said in the beginning, vote your dumb@ss out of office and get someone who will work to do something. It's not just guns. I want to see immigration reform, women's rights, and a few other things that we've been arguing, but doing nothing about. The R's want power to do things their way and the D's want to pull the filibuster so they can force their way. No one will work with the other party to compromise. It's like they forgot how. Sadly, the D version of fixing things is more appealing so I'll take their version for now and I'm not talking about the ban all guns people, but that is a solution too. Just not likely. Adding a sticker actually sounds like a R compromise to me.

Don't over estimate your shooting skills. Getting shot at changes your adrenaline. Trained cops often find they shoot one or two shots in the ground (premature something? - there's a pill for that) before they actually get the gun aimed. Also, how often have you actually needed to pull a gun? It's just a false sense of security just like seeing a no guns sticker.
 
Changing subjects because we can all argue guns and get nowhere just like the politicians. I'm hoping these idiots learn you can't just say what you want. This doctor in Indiana seems to have a legit defamation case and I hope the court slams the AG for saying dumb lies for political wins. Maybe they'll stop and remember why our past politicians had some amount of decorum or at least didn't comment.


Yes it's an MSN piece, but it's not like Fox will put up this news.
 
DVD said:
Changing subjects because we can all argue guns and get nowhere just like the politicians. I'm hoping these idiots learn you can't just say what you want. This doctor in Indiana seems to have a legit defamation case and I hope the court slams the AG for saying dumb lies for political wins. Maybe they'll stop and remember why our past politicians had some amount of decorum or at least didn't comment.

Click to expand...
State AGs can be the worst.

Looking at you, TX.
 
Mine is no better. What? Someone used the state seal to send fake elector ballots to DC. That's just not a crime I'm interested in pursuing. You can go ahead and use the state seal for whatever you want I guess. Of course there is more, but that's literally not doing your job. Good thing he's out. I just hope we get a good replacement. Also, why are AGs voted on? Shouldn't that just be an appointment from the gov? I mean if you're not a lawyer why are you running.
 
Have you taken a gander at Clerk Barb Byrum's twitter feed? Instant classics!

This thread is fire!!



"So if either of you have fees or outstanding reports due, make sure you pay them before you submit your “after Davids!”"
 
michaelskis said:
the woke environment at U of M
Click to expand...

Sounds like you are a man of experience. How many semesters did you spend at U of M? Not trying to rip on you, just hoping you could provide some context. I once got called out as a communist from a classmate because I was the recipient of a Pell Grant. If you've spent some time there, you'd know it is not as woke as you'd expect. The anti-wokesters are there in good ol' a-squared! (Let me tell you about my roommate who was a member of Campus Crusade for Christ, I once had a joyous night of prayer in our dorm room with him and his pastor.)
 
Grand jury agrees not to bring charges against a victim who was "protecting" his property and fired into the wrong car killing a 9-year old. A "good guy with a gun" makes a mistake. Can't believe its not on Fox News... or CNN. It's really only covered by local Houston news, because a kid getting killed isn't even statewide news anymore.

abc13.com

Arlene Alvarez killed: Harris Co. grand jury declines to indict robbery victim who shot 9-year-old

With a grand jury declining to charge the man whom police say fired the deadly shot, the search intensifies for the robber who set this chain of events in motion.
abc13.com abc13.com

Tony Earls' Defense Attorneys Brennen Dunn and Myrecia Donaldson provided the following statement:

"We would first like to extend our condolences to the Alvarez family once more. There is no greater loss than that of a loved one, and we continue to grieve for the loss of such a beautiful soul. While that life weighs heavy on us, we are happy with the grand jury's finding in this case. Their decision reflects our position since the onset of this case. The worlds of two different families were clashing at once, from different perspectives. Mr. Earls did what we believe anyone in that situation would have done.
We are relieved that, despite the emotion and tough decisions that had to be made in dealing with this case, justice was served for Mr. Earls. We do not envy the difficult task of the grand jury, but we certainly appreciate their careful deliberation. We stand in support of the Alvarez family as justice continues to be sought for Arlene Alvarez. Mr. Earls is prepared to assist authorities however he can, to bring the person responsible to justice. We also hope that the DA's office will not be so hasty in the future to charge the best available person, but rather, the most appropriate one."
 
michaelskis said:
I applaud Harbaugh for having the courage to express his believes on a very controversial topic, especially given the woke environment at U of M. Well done sir.

www.mlive.com

Jim Harbaugh tells pro-life event in Plymouth: ‘Let the unborn be born’

Harbaugh, a Catholic, was joined by his wife and Michigan assistant coach George Helow at a fundraiser in Plymouth on Sunday.
www.mlive.com www.mlive.com
Click to expand...
Aren't sports people just supposed to 'shut up and stick to the sport they perform'?
 
Bubba said:
Depends on which of his personalities shows up on a given day.
Click to expand...
If that is a dig at the fact that Harbaugh is a terrible coach 95% of the time, and 99% of the time in games that matter, I am not sure where my support button is located. ;)
 
Oooh. A sports "icon" gave me advice on family matters. I must take him as an expert since he has so much knowledge about family stuff, childbirth, religion, and all the other things that would factor into getting an abortion or not. He's so brave for speaking his mind after a massive court decision and a bunch of other people went before him. Celebrities and sports "icons" need to shut up. No one cares what you think about beyond how you'll score more points than the other guy and why you let a team like Georgia beat you.


For fun stuff, a local campaign sign. I enjoy the lack of punctuation.

Blake Masters will protect children in the U.S. Senate
 
Wannaplan? said:
Sounds like you are a man of experience. How many semesters did you spend at U of M? Not trying to rip on you, just hoping you could provide some context. I once got called out as a communist from a classmate because I was the recipient of a Pell Grant. If you've spent some time there, you'd know it is not as woke as you'd expect. The anti-wokesters are there in good ol' a-squared! (Let me tell you about my roommate who was a member of Campus Crusade for Christ, I once had a joyous night of prayer in our dorm room with him and his pastor.)
Click to expand...
Me, none. Wife, 8. She would tell me stories of some of the crap that was in her classes and that the teachers pressed. Granted she got a degree in Biopsychology, but that is beyond the point.

I was personally sued by a English professor from Michigan years ago in combination with several others and the City I was working for. His son was a busker who was awesome, but it resulted in blocking the sidewalk and forced people to walk into the street. Us asking him to move to a park nearby was apparently a violation of his first amendment rights.

mendelman said:
Aren't sports people just supposed to 'shut up and stick to the sport they perform'?
Click to expand...
When they are using their platform for political positions, then yes. But if you would have read the article, he was speaking at a right to life rally. Not an awards show, not a football game, not social media, not a press conference. He was sharing his views at an event where people agreed with him.


Edit: Your response got me thinking that maybe it is just my wife's perception... but then I found this:
www.niche.com

University of Michigan - Ann Arbor Student Life

See what it's like to be a student at University of Michigan - Ann Arbor with reviews on student life.
www.niche.com www.niche.com

and this:
diversity.umich.edu

University of Michigan

University of Michigan is one of the top universities of the world, a public institution of higher learning, fostering excellence in research. U-M provides outstanding undergraduate, graduate and professional education, serving the local, regional, national and international communities.
diversity.umich.edu diversity.umich.edu

So I guess my question to you is why was your experience different than that of the majority of the student body?
 
Last edited:
michaelskis said:
When they are using their platform for political positions, then yes. But if you would have read the article, he was speaking at a right to life rally. Not an awards show, not a football game, not social media, not a press conference. He was sharing his views at an event where people agreed with him.
Click to expand...
You know it's the same thing. Don't try to hand wave it away as 'different'.

He is a very prominent statewide and national sports professional and everything he says is going to get national press and be held up as an example of blah, blah, blah.
 
Back
Top