20.Oct.2015 Colorado @ Oregon State (Preview)

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)

As noted in the last thread, I’m not going to spend time thinking about these games so long as Seth Collins is running around like a chicken with his head cut off. There’s not much to think about. Jack summed that situation up nicely.

Since the game kicks off late on Saturday, I will watch it, but no more wasted afternoons watching that guy.

My feeling is the Beavs aren’t as awful as they’ve looked the past few weeks. This is based on the generality that at the lowest point, a person or team is not as bad as they appear. Nebraska, for example, went from looking awful to looking pretty good. Were they awful all along, or did they hit a bad period where everything was going against them and it snowballed? Probably the latter, or at least a mix of the two. I suspect the same is true with the Beavs, and we’ll see some better performances. Am I confident in that? No. But that’s usually how things work.

I’m not going to make a prediction on this game since we don’t even know who the QB will be (e.g. reports that Nick Mitchell is getting heavy reps). I had this marked as a win pre-season, so I’ll go with the W, but no clue on a score. I have a feeling whoever is QB will be handing the ball off a lot. My feeling is GA might start Mitchell, or have him ready to go if Collins struggles at all, and that he will go back to basics and try to jump start the run game. This would be smart for obvious reasons (keep the D rested, keep Collins involvement minimal, etc).

Jump to Bottom
  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Did anyone else catch GA’s reference to chicken salad during the presser? He tried to pass it off after that statement as some vagary made by some other “old coach.” But it was interesting.

    I’ve softened a bit on GA since I listened to what he said. I’m thinking last week was an instance where he might have felt it would be unfair to any back-up to have to come in and try to clean up all the fertilizer left on the field, especially if they had no reps during the week. And he finally came out and intimated that, while what you see on the field is all his fault, we may just have to put up with what we’re seeing for now with the expectation that it will get better sometime later.

    I actually don’t mind the trick plays (sans the “fake” punt). It tells the players that the coaches are still engaged and trying. Maybe it’s desperate. Maybe we could have won if if if and if if if. But players buy into trying when the coaches are trying. Words are not enough.

    So we’ll see if actions take precedence this week and beyond. I’ll probably still DVR it and watch it after everyone has gone to bed. My family doesn’t need to see me weeping and gnashing my teeth… whatever that is.

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      I notice I always feel a bit better after GA addresses the media on Mondays. Parker said he felt the same way. Maybe we’re being manipulated……

      • BeaverBill BeaverBill says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

        I know I sound like an Anderson fan but actually I’m a anyone except Riley fan. I think Anderson is what you see is what you get. I like the guy. I think he has been straight up and honest to date. Like I have said here before he has been handed a pile of shit and is trying to make the best chocolate cake possible from it but in the end the ingredient (players) is still shit. Can’t wait until he brings in the proper ingredients (players). Riley left because he know it would be shit cake to all this year.

      • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I remember saying something similar back when he was initially hired. Talks a really good game, but I wanted to remain cautiously optimistic because I feel like he could sell me on anything.

        I’m still cautiously optimistic, but feel like lack of recent progress hasn’t really jived with the talk. Still, I had this season as 4 wins tops, so I’m not sure we’re that far off from what I was expecting. Was hoping the viewing experience would be a little more entertaining, but so far it’s playing out close to that script, with WSU showing a little more talent than I originally thought.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

        He seems to have the touch points down. What we see and immediately rant on, he sees and discusses with his coaches and then players… and then tells us about it on Mondays. I think he’s giving mixed messages in terms of what he wants and who we are. But he seems to address everything with competence instead of sloughing it off with deflection.

        Bill is right, it’s a breath of fresh air. You might be right. It could be manipulation. But I always look at his position as something he can lose if he doesn’t do what he says. And that alleviates my fears that we’re being manipulated.

        We still need to see action. Mostly, we need to see SC look past his first read immediately. In fact, If I’m a coach going against us, I double and triple the first read… as has been done. I see that as an OC, and I tell my QB to only nod at the first read. Because the second and especially the third, read are wide wide open before he pulls it down and CWHCO. The TE dump is situational. SC gets many D in the box, and the TE can’t move without being covered. And SC has proven he can’t hit the RB in stride, even if it’s a good outlet.

        We saw this with Mariota when he was young. He would shift his body to the second or third read while keeping his head pointed at the first read. It made for really funky looking footwork. But it was effective. He was never going to pass to his first read, but the DBs peeking couldn’t read his body and feet. He was obviously told to do this and that to fool the D.

      • Calibeav says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)

        I said it last week. Dude is all talk to this point.. He has the game withy the media and fans down pact. Meanwhile Whats said inside the 4 walls isn’t translating at least not yet.

        • Jim says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Well he is just a coach after all. What else can he do besides talk? He can’t go out there and play. The only other thing he can do is recruit “his” guys. If it still looks like this a couple years down the road, then it will be fully on him.

      • Beav in TX says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Can you imaging the difference between being recruited by him and recruited by Riley?

    • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      The 2017 QB referenced in the feed was Avery Davis. One of a handful of Dual-Threat QB targets in 2017 for the Beavs(see also Ryan Kelley, Tua Tagovailoa, Tayler Katoa and Tate Martell).

      Avery was offered back in May, but I just re-tweeted that because it had some of his current year highlights, in case anybody was interested.

      • AKBeaver AKBeaver says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

        Appreciate the hard work Beavblazer. This weekend is shaping up nicely from a recruiting standpoint and I hope the students aren’t fazed by recent losses. It’s homecoming weekend which should lead to a good crowd although I’m sure the late start time will deter some folks. Not expecting a win but I do expect the team to play more like they did in the 2nd half vs. WSU and make an impression on the recruits.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

        This weekend they host all the Chandler recruits. It’s a good time to perform…

  • Hi_I'm_Chuckie says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

    I am excited for Mason Moran… Doesn’t look like a bad prospect to me but who knows

  • Colorado All F'ing Day says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -3 (from 11 votes)

    Your program is in such disarray from the top down it’s ridiculous. Reminds me of the start of our temporary low point that we’re recovering from just in time to play you guys. The beavers are the best medicine.

    • RanYakumo RanYakumo says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -3 (from 5 votes)

      Shouldn’t you be following your Ducks instead of trolling?

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

      UC would know… still… aaaaannd… still.

      You need to bring your own sugar to add to that medicine. And you probably want to bring a nanny to sing about sugar and medicine.

    • beaverbeliver says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      Recovering from a low point? Your program is the epitome of mediocrity. When was the last time Colorado was in a Bowl game? Your recovery includes sweet wins over Nichols st. and Umass. Looks like next year is the year that you get in the Playoff! Colorado is a joke and adds nothing to this conference. They are 4-35 since starting here. The Beavs will prove who the doormats in this conference are. 44-3 Beavs!!

    • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

      I like how this clown up-votes his own post. Douchebag.

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      yawn, wake me up when you have new or even interesting material bro-troll

      • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Ya.,…. he/she should let their kid do the trolling. Comeon, troll! — at least show us SOMETHING. Even a TINY bit clever would be appreciated!

    • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      CU hasn’t been to a bowl game since 2005. What were you saying about this temporary low point?

    • Tlingit Cannon Tlingit Cannon says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Sounds like you are describing your life numb nuts. What kind of loser wastes their time on a rival’s forum?

  • SalemBeav says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Listening to the presser, GA said that was not a fake punt. The punter ad libbed and GA said he would fix it. GA said in as nice a way that you can that you need talent to win in this conference. Which is to say the talent pool is lacking by the previous “mail it in” guys. This year and next year GA is polishing a turd. No matter how much spit and polish, it is still a turd. GA has an FCS team and no amount of coaching is going to elevate the talent to PAC 12. Keep going after 4s and 5s.

    • orangejulius orangejulius says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +4 (from 6 votes)

      “GA has an FCS team”

      At least the Beavs could beat MR’s Huskers then.

  • Beaver'88 says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

    Colorado 35-Beavs 17

  • BeaverQB BeaverQB says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    I really want to believe that OSU isn’t the worst team in the Pac-12. I really want to believe that…

    But, the Buffs average 31.5 points per game, and the Beavs average 21.7…

    My prediction: Colorado 32, Oregon State 21

    • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      32 is a tough score to come up with.

      • cj cj says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

        16 Safeties!

      • scotty says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        4 touchdowns with one 2 point conversion as a statement since the buffs smell blood. Plus a FG, bam 32 🙂

        • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

          …..or…..just round off 31.5 …..

          whew, …such shit is ….rocket science!! I am exhausted….

        • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          I know, but 32-21 has only happened 5 times ever in pro football, going back to 1920 (I can’t find a list for college). And 32 points for one team has happened like 30 times in that same time frame. But he’s going off yearly average, which is cool, I’m not dogging his pick. Im just pointing out statistically its a tough pick.

  • Jack says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

    Okay… let’s get picks in.

    1. Temple @ East Carolina
    2. Cal @ UCLA
    3. Army @ Rice
    4. aTm @ Mississippi
    5. CU @ OSU (score: tie-break)

    • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      You picked some tough ones…

      1.east carolina
      2.cal
      3.rice
      4.miss
      5. colorado (55)(purely based on them having a better passing game right now)

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      1. Temple
      2. Cal
      3. Army
      4. aTm
      5. OSU (24-23)

    • Numbers says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      What was I 0 for 5?

      On that note:
      Ecu
      Ucla
      Rice
      Miss
      Colorado 100-0

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Temple
      UCLA
      Rice
      aTm
      OSU (21-17)

    • RanYakumo RanYakumo says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      1. Temple
      2. UCLA
      3. Army
      4. aTm
      5. OSU, 24-17

    • zbeav says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Temple
      UCLA
      Rice
      aTm
      CU 38-21

    • orangejulius orangejulius says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      1. EC… Temple @ East Carolina
      2. Cal…Cal @ UCLA
      3. Rice…Army @ Rice
      4. Aggies…aTm @ Mississippi
      5. Beavs …21-14…CU @ OSU (score: tie-break)

    • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Temple
      Cal
      Rice
      Miss
      Osu, 27-17

    • Whiskey soaked napkins Whiskey soaked napkins says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Temple
      UCLA
      Rice
      Ass To Mouth
      OSU 34-24

      How in the fuck are you picking what games? Dartboard?

    • oneoldbeav oneoldbeav says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Temple
      UCLA
      Army
      aTm
      OSU 24-21

    • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      East Carolina
      Ucla
      Army
      aTm
      OSU 38-34
      I just can’t not pick OSU. Why I know not to bet sports

    • Tlingit Cannon Tlingit Cannon says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Temple
      UCLA
      Rice
      Miss
      OSU 35-24 (back at home, big recruiting weekend…)

    • Corey says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      1. Temple
      2. Cal
      3. Rice
      4. aTm
      5. OSU (27-17)

  • Bill says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Collins will start. It’s clear Mitchell has passed MM on the depth chart. We’ll see if he takes advantage of any opportunities that come to him.

    Should be a close game. If they lose, I don’t see how there’s anyway they can turn things around this year.

    Crowd will probably be sparse due to how the season is progressing and the night game factor.

  • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Temple
    UCLA
    Army
    Miss
    OSU 35-31

  • ean says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    The cheapest ticket on StubHub is over $40. I guess people would rather just not use their tickets than post them for cheap. I was hoping to go just to hang with friends and drink beer but I am not so sure at that price for the quality of product on the field.

    • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      They’re going to get desperate. I had to sell mine, and put them up for pretty cheap and they sold quickly. Would rather take a loss and have somebody go in my place than have another empty seat at Reser.

    • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Find some people selling tix on craigslist and offer what you’re willing to pay. The worst is they could say no. I’m guessing they’re not getting many requests at the higher prices, so they’ll probably be willing to take a hit to unload them.

      http://portland.craigslist.org/search/sso?sort=rel&query=oregon+state+colorado

      • ean says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        good idea, forgot about tickets on CL.

        • Whiskey soaked napkins Whiskey soaked napkins says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          Found some end zone seats for $35. But I don’t want to sit in the end zone. I’m guessing if you wait until Friday evening/early Saturday the price will drop. I’m not buying until Friday at the earliest

  • Colorado All F'ing Day says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -2 (from 12 votes)

    Colorado 41

    Beavers 17

    Colorado has a clear coaching and personnel advantage across the board.

    Ralphie is gonna run over you slack water rodents!

    • Ayy Lmao says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Cool?

      • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +10 (from 10 votes)

        Ralphie is the hottest chick at Colorado, just so you know.

        • scotty says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

          She so horny

          • marcodg marcodg says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)

            That’s because she’s bi (son).

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I never did get that. An institution of higher learning calls a bison a buffalo. What kind of stupid do you have to be for that? I’m guessing you kill buffalos with ASU forks?

    • Your Mom All F'ing Night says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

      So a guy with a 25-43 career head coaching record (9-22 at CU) is a CLEAR coaching advantage? Excuse me while I go punch your dad and peckerslap your momma for ever bearing let alone raising an individual as bright as you are son.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Slow down. It’s a clear redundant redundancy in the redundancy.

        You may be right. This troll is too stupid to be anything but a Duck.

    • Dwill03 Dwill03 says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      What brought you over here tool? Edick boring now that the circle jerk is over and the ducks have lost 1/4 of their fan base?

  • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Well, I think the Beavs are short on crap play, having used up a huge load in recent games….. so we WIN. I mean, there is only so much crap in the universe, right? Isnt that one of Einstein’s laws?? Square the crap, multiply it itmes the mediocre play, and you get….EFFORT….

    • angry angry says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      That’s what I was getting at when saying teams usually aren’t as bad as they look. Beavs used up their crap. They are probably sick of themselves, and will come out ready to play.

    • marcodg marcodg says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      You’re thinking of law of crap entropy which states that crap is always increasing. Einstein did show that crap was relative, though and dependent on the speed of the observer.

      • beavergopher beavergopher says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        He was right. I’ve got a lot of crappy relatives.

  • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    For those who dont do twitter, osu Trevon Bradford is matched up with oregon commit Brady Breeze in a voting bracket to see who plays in the under armor allstar game. Not sure why they’d have fans vote to decide that, but the osu guy needs to win. If you have a minute, go vote this kid in. Already seen him move up from 33% to 47% of the votes in the last few minutes.

    click the link and scroll to the right till you see his bracket.

    http://dreamfearlessly.underarmourgame.com/

    • scotty says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Had to hunt for him… 3rd in the Southeast bracket

    • Your Mom All F'ing Night says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      I did my part. No way I’m voting for a dude with the name Brady Breeze. Sounds like a gay pornstar name

      • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        outed mysefl for trolling our resident duck dick earlier. I also post occasionally as Lindsay’s four stomachs. But I think you all already knew

      • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        I didn’t pay attention, but is that Drew Breezes kid from bend? I thought I heard he was coaching at mountain view or something like that.

    • Tlingit Cannon Tlingit Cannon says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      He’s up to 58% now!

  • StarcraftSquall says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Tuesday Practice Report:
    https://t.co/E46Fb7ZTWg

    Tuesday Radio Interview (Gina Mizell on Portland Radio):
    https://t.co/aOxaSmtTOU

  • beaverkman beaverkman says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    Larry SCott, Ali’i Robbins, Luke Hollingsworth, and Hunter Jarmon are out or questionable.

  • angry angry says:
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 8 votes)

    OT: this might be the most ignorant article I have ever come across. The liberals are desperate to get involved in other peoples’ lives, tell them what to do, ban guns, etc. I mean, is this guy for real?

    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/16/want_a_gun_take_a_bullet_new_rule_before_you_pack_heat_you_will_know_what_it_feels_like_to_be_shot/

    Holy crap! I know we have some hunters, outdoors-men, preppers around here so maybe it isn’t OT.

    • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

      How about run over with the car you want to buy or hit in the head with the hammer you want to get at home depot, or maybe stabbed with the kitchen knives you want to get? That guy is a fucking lunatic.

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +5 (from 5 votes)

        Emotions are high. Logic is out the window. Shit is getting real, buddy.

    • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I saw this a few days ago. Yes I am a loser and as a CHL carrier, I wrote about it

      https://wordpress.com/post/101271257/4/

      • angry angry says:
        VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        That link doesn’t work. It wants me to login or something

        • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

          my bad. that was my admin link. try this one

          https://oregonconcealedcarry.wordpress.com/2015/10/17/heres-a-real-gem/

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

            Guns break apart families and ruin lives

            Is it a myth? Or is it that because you just say so? Do you provide any proof? Does the original author you do not source provide any proof?

            I’m guessing the answer to both is no. But I’m also guessing the original author you did not source is more correct than you are.

            Belay my last.

            I know he’s correct, and you are wrong. And you can not come with any data to support your position. You can only imagine that everyone who cocks their penis is as sensible as you are when walking among the people secure in a country of mostly non-cocked-penis people.

            Yay for hammers and butcher knives and dollar shave club! If it wasn’t for them, penis cockers wouldn’t have a red herring.

            Yay!

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Ftr… if you can outshoot me, then you are one helluva shot. You can’t out-stalk me. But I know I’m not the greatest shot… just excellent.

          • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Bottom line, imo…….would you want to try to defend your home with a hammer…..or with a gun?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -3 (from 3 votes)

            Neither.

            That’s one of the dumbest questions I’ve had to answer. If I had to choose between the two, then the hammer would be my choice. I’ve built houses. Bullets, contrary to every movie you’ve ever seen, don’t just stop because you tilt a table in front you… or because there’s a wall between you and your kids.

            But why would I have a hammer? It’s in the garage with the rest of my tools. I’d most likely wait for my dogs to stop chewing on him before I threw a cat at his face… then beat the shit out of him… with my feet… wouldn’t want to hurt the hands.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            “Bullets, contrary to every movie you’ve ever seen, don’t just stop because you tilt a table in front you… or because there’s a wall between you and your kids.”

            That depends on what type of bullet.

          • WFO WFO says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Jack wolf herding ninja.

          • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            I probably wouldn’t choose the hammer, but maybe a baseball bat or something with a little more reach would be my weapon of choice. It’s not like I’d be sleeping next to a loaded gun that would be easily accessible if there were a crisis.
            Curious how often anybody here has had to defend their home? How often do break ins happen when people are home? I know it happens occasionally. My wife’s 85 year old grandfather was beaten and bound by a home intruder, but a gun wouldn’t have helped him because of how sudden the event occurred.
            Anyway, I’m not anti-gun, but I am anti assault rifle. There’s no other purpose for that weapon other than to assault a person. Seems a bit unnecessary.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Yeah… I have a billy club close. But how is it going to work if I’m not awake to use it.

            I’m also not anti-gun. But I am against the idea that free speech is the enemy of rational gun ownership. And I’m against the idea that assault weapons are rational ownership. Pieces are hit and miss. But when used as a sidearm and last resort for safety, they make sense. But don’t pretend they’re a deterrent unless you also put in the work to be able to not be disarmed first.

            In the end, I have and maintain some nice rifles and use them infrequently. Nobody will ever take them away from me, and I have never felt any discussion involving gun control has even suggested that anyone would try to do so.

            My feeling is that the right to bear arms means that a person should know what it means to bear arms. That person should know responsibility and care like they know if they can properly raise a child if they have one or care for a dog when they choose to get one. I have no problem first proving to anyone that I am responsible enough to care for what I have. And I don’t see it as an imposition on anyone else to have to answer all the same questions and prove competency.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            They make a lot of sense for women. It’s hard to neutralize a large, male assailant with anything else if you’re a typical female. They should all carry a Derringer.

            It makes a lot of sense for everyone to have a small revolver and actually carry. I doubt we’d see the mass shootings if the shooter knew he’d walk in and be instantaneously shot. He’s going in there as a bully, knowing he is the only one who likely has a gun.

            BTW England, Australia, et al STILL has mass shootings, even though they’ve banned/limited guns. They also have mass murders of other types (arson and knives seems to be popular now). You guys want to build a society around the minority of lunatics, rather than the majority who own weapons and do nothing. Makes no sense, ‘statistically’ (1 in 12.5 million odds of dying in a mass shooting) since you dingbats are all hellbent on stats. 😉

            Worry about something real.

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            yes it is a myth. As I stated a tool is worthless without the human driving force behind it. It’s a pretty simple concept. Apparently lost on you

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            You source nothing, which leads to the “myth” being of your own making. You can at least provide and try to manipulate statistics in order to pretend to support your argument.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Btw, the article linked originally by angry is quite ridiculous as well. So don’t think I’m supporting it. My interest is that free speech be at least rational. You choose a ridiculous article lay a foundation of what?

            It’s tantamount to arguing with a fool. Why choose to do so?

          • Whiskey soaked napkins Whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Seriously? I need to cite laws of physics to prove that a tool is worthless without the human force behind it? Shovels don’t dig holes by themselves. It’s proven by science, logic and reason. As previously stated if you can’t understand a concept that simple I can’t help you

          • WFO WFO says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            Don’t need that physics shit. Fucking vicious dogs and ninja kicks motherfucker!!!

    • RanYakumo RanYakumo says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 6 votes)

      I’m really tired of the authoritarian left, especially those who want to institute more and more “safe spaces” in colleges. That anti-intellectual crap is going to lead to the death of this nation if left unchecked.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

        You’re going to have to point out where these “safe spaces” are. There are zero in Oregon. The death of the nation is people acting in their own self-interest instead of in the interest of the nation.

        Truth.

        People didn’t die for your right to be a selfish shit who thinks taxes aren’t your fucking dues for being the spoilt shit who was just lucky enough to be born in this country.

        But go up to them and thank the living ones for their service.

        Fucking stupid argument right here.

        • RanYakumo RanYakumo says:
          VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

          Sorry, I should’ve clarified. I’m not talking about “no gun” safe spaces, I’m talking about intellectual safe spaces where college students never have to be exposed to “discomforting” ideas they don’t like, and are thus rapidly making my generation one of the most spineless the world has ever seen. Like what the article below talks about:

          http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/

          Forget guns, many liberals are trying to ban free speech they don’t agree with, and that’s even more dangerous than the gun control stuff. That’s acting in their own self interest to the max.

          And yes, the right has plenty of authoritarian crazies, too. Difference is, they’re currently not in power, so they can’t do as much.

          Also, I have no clue what tax dodging has to do with any of this.

          • Numbers says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            Tax dodging is what happened about 30 years ago or so, when the anti tax smaller government types included cutting public education in their cuts. Public education wasn’t important to them selfishly and specifically. The result is generations of brainless public, right and left do not matter, its our general public that is dumb as shit. It will take a long time with proper public education for this to correct, but we are full speed in the wrong direction.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 2 votes)

            When compared to previous generations, the next one is always smarter and more knowledgeable. Don’t use stupid crap people put on the internet as evidence of anything.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +6 (from 8 votes)

            Smarter and more knowledgeable? This latest generation has no common sense, no interpersonal communication skills, it’s almost like a generation of extremely autistic kids. They care more about Facebook and Twitter than anything else, the like button is their king.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            Not smarter. More “modern” — the Flynn Effect.

          • beavergopher beavergopher says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Have to agree with Angry on this.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            What evidence are you basing your conclusion on? Being a grump about “kids these days” is only evidence that you’re a grump. Seeing kids on their phones doesn’t mean they’re inept in the areas you listed.

          • Whiskey soaked napkins Whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            No but there IS a social disconnect. As things like social media, texting, etc progress there is less human face to face interaction. And the younger generation isn’t learning skills and utilizing how to deal with people and interact with one another. Maybe you don’t see this, but I and others do.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Yahtzee

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I see a social disconnect. I still question if it’s a greater disconnect than previous generations. I also “see” a lot of kids interacting face-to-face.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Where is there legislation in process to ban free speech?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I think it’s that it takes legislation to unwind policies readily accepted by many schools.
            https://www.thefire.org/infographic-free-speech-zones-on-americas-campuses-2/

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      I’m not sure why you pick on “liberals” for finally being as bonkers as the NRA. I don’t welcome it. But at least someone gets noticed for something more than trying to be reasonable.

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Btw… who says he’s a liberal? Wouldn’t strict enforcement of some law be a conservative ideal? Are we that upside down in this country?

        • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

          Enforcement is the key word, gun laws are largely ignored, unless you shot at, and or kill a person. And since when do criminals follow laws? Are they going to break in to your house, steal your tv, then see a gun and say “we’ll I’m not legally allowed to have a gun, so I better not take it”.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

            I don’t know what criminals have to do with anything anyway. The statistics for home invasion are overwhelmingly conclusive that said criminals in some way know their victims and what property they have before the crime (and, in the age of social media, know when the victim is not at home). Guns have a high rate of return on the black market and would likely be the target of such a crime in the first place, televisions are unwieldy and likely to be left behind.

            So the people who flash cash or are flamboyant in casual discussions about their personal property (like talking about how many guns I have at home and bragging how nobody better come to my door uninvited) make themselves a higher value target than someone who talks about watching TV on their monster screen.

    • rsteve503 rsteve503 says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

      Logic is out the window — last time I read up on this, the US had like 10x the homicide rate, over the most armed country in the world (not us by a long ways). It aint the guns that are the problem, it s mental health…. A lot of crazies in the good ol US of A….

      • Jack says:
        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

        Thank you.

        • Jack says:
          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

          And it’s not just mental health. It’s simply health.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

            The mental health thing is a smoke screen put out by right wingers. While it’s a component, if you say that’s the reason for gun violence, then you’re saying all other modern, Western countries’ mental health systems are leaps and bounds ahead of the U.S. Look at the U.K. and violence there. They love to stab the shit out of each other, which is evidence of violence in the population. If there was the access and proliferation of guns at the same level as the U.S., there homicide rate would be much higher because many would use a gun instead of a knife if they could.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            It’s not a smoke screen, you are confusing what is said about mass shootings with any one who shoots another. Look at the last 10-15 mass shooters, all had varying degrees of mental illness or were on prescription drug used to treat mental illness.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

            I don’t think I’m confusing anything. Right wingers are giving the updated, knee jerk response to gun violence, saying it’s a mental health issue. Why not be honest and say it’s a combination of several things, one being easy access to guns and the sheer volume of guns in our country.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -2 (from 10 votes)

            Easy access to guns is a good thing.
            If you don’t like the Country’s founding principles, you should leave the Country, rather than rewrite the laws because you are too lazy to move. But it’s much easier to whine about it and tell other people how they should live, that they can’t defend themselves, hunt, engage in hobby/target shooting, etc.

            In fact, how about instead of banning guns, the US makes a deal to export our disgruntled gun hating citizens to UK/Australia et al. They’ll have the “safe” havens they desire, and see how that goes for them. My guess is they will find something else to complain about or irrationally fear, like knives, arson, hammers, bombs, rape (that the lack of guns has caused), etc etc.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

            You realize the countries you listed are much safer than the U.S. right? You seem to be basing your position on the notion that guns create safety. That’s a myth which has been capitalized on to sell product.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Ah, moving the goalpost fallacy.

            Whether they are safer than the US isn’t the issue. The question is whether guns have reduced violence in those Countries, and by most metrics they haven’t. There has been an uptick in contact violence (rape, assault, knife death, etc) and even non contact like arson (Australia has had several mass arsons, something we don’t hear about here).. I grant that statistics can be manipulated and flawed, so the valid question would be whether we can trust those figures, if there is methodology error, etc.

          • homefry homefry says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 5 votes)

            Easy access to guns is a good thing.

            Fail

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 6 votes)

            Bunch of pansies around here…
            I get that you want to drink your $10 cafe latte and $5 muffin in absolute, social sterility, fairness, and safety while judging the rest of society, but come on, at least grow a tiny sack. One nut would suffice. I’d be happy if you guys just stopped interfering with those of us who have two.

          • WFO WFO says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Don’t forget the guy standing outside with a gun to keep you “safe”.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)

            Maybe you’re referring to me as a pansy? I’m suggesting the people be honest about guns and have a back and forth about it. Not reference lame stereotypes, polarize the issue (“they want to ban guns!!”) or fall back on outdated gender jabs on my nuts. I don’t live in fear and I don’t feel the need to protect myself with a gun because I rely on other things to keep me safe and I have objective facts about how safe or unsafe, I am.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Bend, are your “objective” stats government crime figures or pro/anti gun right groups stats? Because there is nothing else out there.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            That’s a specious argument.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Over the last 30 years the us murder rate has fallen, a lot. While gun ownership has sky rocketed. The last gun ownership numbers were around 350 million wepons (which honestly is too low) in the hands of the population. If you are less safe with a gun, wouldn’t the rate of gun injuries increase?

          • WFO WFO says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Yeah and everywhere they pass shall issue concealed carry laws “is gonna be the wild west with shootouts in the line at McDonald’s omgomgomgzzooooorrrzzz!!!!!!!!!”

            And then crime rates drop and nobody says anything.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Like in Las Vegas, where guys walk down the street with shotguns on their shoulder and revolvers in their holsters. Nobody even notices…

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Those numbers are a little off. Per capita, they’re correct. But percentage gun ownership both by households and by individuals has shrunk over the last 30 years. But if you want raw data to disprove your point, there are real studies out there.
            http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409?journalCode=ajph&

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            But more guns equals more people injured by guns. So the more guns one owns, the more likely they will be injured. Which isn’t happening. And WFO is right, I need waders to walk down the streets, the blood letting is horrendous. It’s the OK corral out there. I am amazed by the hoplophobia in america. I graduated in 1996 I had my deer rifle, in the back window of my truck during deer season. I was on campus at high school, The principle only ask that it not be loaded. Today that would be a instant call to swat, and a possible drone strike. Ohh the pussifacation of America.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            The principle only ask that it not be loaded. Today that would be a instant call to swat, and a possible drone strike. Ohh the pussifacation of America.

            Because the government and kind-hearted liberals are protecting you from your own stupidity. Duh!
            #controlfreaks

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Yup, all over an irrational fear of an inanimate object. Just think that gun could have jump out of my truck and started shooting up the school. Thank you brave liberal……thank you. :\

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Those numbers are a little off. Per capita, they’re correct. “But percentage gun ownership both by households and by individuals has shrunk over the last 30 years. But if you want raw data to disprove your point, there are real studies out there.”

            Jack, come on, you really think a survey is going to tell the whole story. Every gun owner I know would either decline a survey or out right lie, if someone would ask about guns. It’s the old Opsec/Persec run around. My wife and I CCW, no one outside of our “circle of trust” knows we carry or even knows we hunt. It’s no one’s business but our own.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Blackbandit, the same “pussification” that gives people alarm when they see someone carrying a gun down the street is the same pussification (i.e. fear) that leads people to buy guns to protect themselves and their family.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            I have a family to protect, and I will stop at nothing to protect them. Don’t expect the police to protect you, it’s not there job, the police are there only to investigate after the fact. I really don’t care how you protect your family, that’s your business, just like it should be none of your business how I protect mine.

            In the 50’s and 60’s many kids in this country were taught about guns in the classroom, they were taught the 4 rules they were taught how to respect guns…interestingly enough by the NRA. The lefts boogyman. The NRA has tried, unsuccessfully, to get gun education back into the classroom to educate kids about the dangers and how to respect them. The lefts answer is to fight tooth and nail against it because guns are dangerous. Well how’s that for a fucking circle jerk.

            Now the mere sight of “finger guns” or a kid eatting his sandwich into the shape of a gun causes wide spread panick and little Johnny is arrested for being a terrorist. Please tell me how we went from middle school and high school shooting teams to expelling little Johnny because he wrote about hunting with his dad over the weekend? It’s because of hoplophobia, the irrational fear of an inanimate object, The Gun. As if the god damn thing are going to jump out of a closet and start shooting on their own.

            Do you blame forks for fat people? I’m guessing no. So stop blaming guns for assholes killing other people. If they can’t use a gun they’ll use a knife. If they can’t use a knife they’ll use a hammer. If they cant use a hammer they’ll use their fists. You can’t stop assholes, it doesn’t matter what weapons they use, but I damn sure know what I’m going to use if God forbid something happens.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Bendbeaver, I truly do respect your opinion on this matter. You see it fit to protect your family a different way then me. And that’s fine. I grew up shooting and hunting in this state, I have no fear of my guns, but I respect the huge responsibility that comes with owning them. As do 99% of people who LEGALLY own guns in this country. There are shit head gun owners, who give the rest of us a bad name. And then there are the felons, I only say felons because that is what they are, people who have guns that are not allowed to possess them by the multitude of gun laws in this country. Those are the people that need to be dealt with. But the democratic element seems to ignore the fact that these people exist, and lumps “gun owners” into a catch all phrase. The fact is the government chooses to ignore the gun laws that are on the books that can help reduce these crimes. You can’t make something that is illeagal, more illeagal: illeagaler: illeagalier? If the left and the right could pull their collective heads out, and made sure the laws that are there, are inforced, things can change. But making new laws that further restrict law abiding citezens is maddness.
            After the shooting in Roseburg, those same Democrats stood before the state and the nation and said that we need universal background checks and needed to make gun trafficking illegal. ??? Gun trafficking has been a felony since 1932….. universal gun check would have done nothing to stop that shit sack from getting guns, and it was already law in Oregon.
            Here is another interesting fact I’ll give you. The OSP puts out a news letter that gives background check numbers for the state of oregon. Last year they said they denied something like 900 applicants. A denial could be anything from an address not matching ( usually rare) to a felon or domestic abuser. They arrested 8 people…. if you lie or falsify any info on a 4473 is a felony…they arrested 8 people out of 900 denied applications. We’re is the demand from the left to arrest these people….it’s no where. See the laws don’t really mean anything anymore…they should, to people like you and me…but the shit heads in our society don’t give a fuck… and until we start giving a fuck about the laws we have…not the laws we need to make….nothing will change.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            -Australia and England rape rates have skyrocketed since they banned/limited guns.
            -UK has millions of unregistered guns being used in crimes, too. (some reports say gun violence has actually increased, just underground now) as rape and robbery skyrocket. These victims can’t defend themselves with a neutralizing weapon thanks to the dingbat, control freaks.
            -There are legit uses of guns. Why the focus on extremely rare mass shootings?
            -Guns save lives daily, yet the stories are not reported.
            -If Jack doesn’t want to shoot a bullet through his walls, then don’t get a gun, or use a round with lower power/wider spread — easy solutions. But don’t tell others what to do under a guise of “but…the children”!
            -There are plenty of people on Rx drugs, who own guns, who have zero interest in killing people. Even that argument is logically unsound.

            Stats suck.

            These gun arguments are always about assholes who want to tell people how to live vs people who don’t want to be told what to do, and the former [usually] eventually win these populist arguments by manipulating emotions, data, etc and not letting tragedy go to waste.

            I think the more important issue, compared to say mental health, is gun training and safety. If you buy a gun, you should take it upon yourself to train. Handling and misuse are the main causes of gun death (outside of governments, cartels, gangs, etc).

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

            Saying that you and others are safer with a gun is a result of being manipulatedemotionally. Statistically, you’re less safe with a gun around. But Americans being Americans, we think our unique individuality overrides statistics.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            That argument is awful. Statistically, you are more likely to die in a plane crash if you fly.

            Derp.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

            Umm…no. Statistically you’re more likely to die in a car if you chose that way over flying. I’m comparing two things: having a gun and not having a gun. The former is less safe than the latter.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 6 votes)

            I never mentioned cars.
            I said if you fly, you are more likely to die in a plane.

            Derp.

            Anyway, guns are inherently dangerous. It’s why I mentioned training and safety. I’d be behind a public service announcement highlighting gun safety and encouraging proper training. Guns are mostly safe if you train, and they can and do save lives en masse. It’s up to each citizen to weigh the very minor risk (if properly trained) vs the reward. The reward (defense, and hobby target shooting that brings joy), to me, far outweighs the risk. But I trained with a professional and know how to operate, know when something is faulty, etc.

            Mass shootings are a non-issue to me. There will always be things like that, and I don’t believe you can plan society around them and still have a healthy society. Stripping rights from citizens turns those shackles inward, and you’re likely to end up with more bottled up people. And this is born out in the countries that banned or limited guns — violence overall went up. Part of that, with rape and robbery, is also knowing the victim can’t defend themselves. So if you are bigger, you win. Guns are a neutralizing weapon.

          • beavergopher beavergopher says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            The left also wants to get rid of cars, so you might want to dig up some train statistics.

          • beavergopher beavergopher says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

            If you fly in a car you are more likely to die than if you fly in a plane.

          • Ayy Lmao says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 7 votes)

            What kind of an argument is saying “Ohhh other countries have less gun violence than the U.S.” when you compare them to countries with strict(er) laws? Well no shit. If the country has less guns of course there is going to be less gun violence because the tool isn’t there. But, check their homicide rates and see that they are equally on par. It’s like saying a country with cars has more car accidents than a country with no cars. Either way, it’s a second amendment and a fundamental right.

            There are more important matters, immigration is about to be the death of American and European economics and culture. Go ahead and scream “Racist!” because that’s not the case. If all groups act the same then you can label one with a bias. Starting around the 1960, post-European immigration, we see a flooding of new immigrants primarily from Latin America. The problem is not where they came from, or their skin color. The problem is that illegal immigrants use 51% of our total welfare in comparison to 30% of native use.

            Feel that hand dipping into your wallet? I do, and education and infrastructure does as well. This is not the same immigration that brought up America with European immigrants. 73% of all Mexican immigrants use welfare in comparison to 30% of citizens of America and compared to 26% of Europeans. Let that sink in. It only gets worse as we assume that they will assimilate and fund out society, nope. Immigrants with at least one worker in their home is still at 51% welfare use. Oh.. maybe through the years as the adjust to life here they will no longer need welfare? That is no the case either. The numbers show that time in the country even up to 21 years does not change the usage, in fact it starts GROWING from around 10-15 years in the country. A third of Mexico is in our country. And the same problems are arising in Europe with mass immigrants who do not contribute and idolize the same beliefs and values that Western countries uphold.

            This is straight up thievery. I would rather have a hand in my wallet physically taking my money than this. Wake up. These are the indisputable facts from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released on a verified report titled “Welfare use by Immigrant and Native Households”.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

            Mostly right, AYY.

            This is straight up thievery.

            I’d say this is slightly off because we reap benefits of low cost goods (i.e. produce). So society does get some perks of the cheap labor, but those perks mostly go to corporations’ profit margins.

            I think the gun argument will always come down to “I don’t like guns” vs “I like guns”. That’s the core. The stats people throw around are just masturbation to back up that emotional/social preference. The stats can easily be “massaged” to favor a viewpoint. Then it becomes a meme on social media and people believe it if they agree with it and visa versa. The problem with all this is that with every mass shooting, the cries become louder for govt to do something. Govt, of course, loves stripping citizens of rights, so they’ll gladly oblige (all the while laughing at the fools who gave up their rights). I think guns will be banned eventually.

            Another thing with the anti-gun people: they are people who don’t use guns, almost always. So they want to tell you what to do because it doesn’t effect them at all, other then a false sense of safety (I’d argue it’s sterility to live a fearless life, but that’s another matter). So yeah, it is so easy for them to ban it. But see how they feel about banning a “deadly weapon” that they actually use, like a car (and yes, under law these are deadly weapons, capable of mass murder). See how the dandy-pants feels about banning cars. How can they get to their muffins and lattes? I guess on their scooters and mopeds, until someone uses one of those to kill and we ban those. But yeah, they would care a lot if we tried to ban something they value, use, etc. It’s a disrespect for other peoples’ values, and this under a guise of protecting society, children, unicorns, and fairies. Utopia!

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Ayy, mostly wrong. The homicide rate in the U.K. is 1 per 100,000, in the U.S. it’s about 3.5 per 100,000.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            Ayy, mostly wrong. The homicide rate in the U.K. is 1 per 100,000, in the U.S. it’s about 3.5 per 100,000.

            Well that settles it, because it can be for no other reason than guns! lolol. Let’s see the methodology of those stats.

          • Ayy Lmao says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            Bendbeaver, go ahead and look up where the majority of our homicides occur. You’ll be more than not surprised that they are in slums like Detroit and large cities (aka havens for crime).

            Angry, the costs of “cheaper” produce pale in comparison to the costs of our social programs. But, you are exactly right in that money given to welfare recipients quickly ends up spent and in corporate balance sheets. All welfare is corporate welfare… And immigrants are just pawns, used to funnel money from the middle class to the wealthy. That’s why you’re seeing gleeful acceptance of immigrants and refugees. Nothing to do with humanitarian aspects.

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

            If I pull several different comments together, I think Bend is acknowledging that the crime rate (or homicide rate specifically) is a multi-faceted issue, but that availability of firearms is one of the significant facets. The first point is that the homicide rate is lower in the UK as compared with the US. The retort is often that this isn’t the result of fewer guns; there is some societal difference at play here related to mental health or level of violence in the culture generally. Bend argued earlier that the high prevalence of stabbings in the UK suggests they are not necessarily any less violent than we are, but that they can’t actually kill each other at the same level we do because access to tools that make killing extremely easy is more limited. It is obviously a complicated analysis, but I am not seeing any specific retort to this argument, and frankly the connection seems like common sense (though I am only parroting Bend’s numbers; I have no clue what the statistics say). Nearly everyone has admitted guns are inherently dangerous.

            Since the car analogy gets thrown around so frequently, who would be opposed to a system of regulation more like car ownership? Meaning, background checks and safety testing to confirm folks are safe to use guns before they purchase. Just like cars, guns are inherently dangerous, and it is a public safety concern to allow unqualified people to use them. What is the objection to that?

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            This is not the same immigration that brought up America with European immigrants. 73% of all Mexican immigrants use welfare in comparison to 30% of citizens of America and compared to 26% of Europeans. Let that sink in. It only gets worse as we assume that they will assimilate and fund out society, nope. Immigrants with at least one worker in their home is still at 51% welfare use. Oh.. maybe through the years as the adjust to life here they will no longer need welfare? That is no the case either. The numbers show that time in the country even up to 21 years does not change the usage, in fact it starts GROWING from around 10-15 years in the country. A third of Mexico is in our country. And the same problems are arising in Europe with mass immigrants who do not contribute and idolize the same beliefs and values that Western countries uphold.

            I know where you get these numbers. But why wouldn’t you fact check before you parrot outright lies? Hell, even a quick study of history will tell you that the immigrants of yore faced all the same discrimination, segregation and abuse immigrants of today face. Americans used all the same inflammatory language and unsourced lies a hundred years ago. WOPs are still WOPS. Yellow journalism just has a digital means of making you stupid now.

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            krogercomplete, I already went thru all of that. When applying for a CHL one must take a firearms competency course and pass a background check conducted by the FBI and ATF. Now granted the common person that can legally purchase a firearm doesn’t have to jump thru such hoops as i did

          • Whiskey soaked napkins Whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Captain obvious there. You’re more likely to get bitten by a snake if you own a poisonous snake. Or drown if you own a pool. There’s inherent risk with many everyday things

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 6 votes)

            If it’s so obvious, then why do people keep saying you’re safer with a gun, and making statements with flimsy correlations about higher crime somehow is connected to increased gun control? Why do people promote arming citizens as a way to fight crime?

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            Because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

          • BlackBandits BlackBandits says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            And who is going to protect you, if God forbid something that could hurt you, or someone in your family, happened?

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            I’ll be the one protecting myself. No gun needed.

          • whiskey soaked napkins whiskey soaked napkins says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

            yet when the need arises you call someone who has a gun to protect you?

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            No. I call the cops to get the unconscious guy out of my house.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)

            Your “fact” about “rape” skyrocketing as a result of gun control was debunked two years ago when the whackadoodles made up those “facts” to make more money off the pants-peeing public they like to scare on a daily basis. Don’t try and pass off that shit as anything but the guano it is.

            Again… gun crime statistics in the UK that are ambiguous then suddenly support another falsity are probably too imaginary to be believable. Oh! Yeah! The google machine agrees.

            There are legit uses. Mass shootings are used by both sides because they’re emotional. I agree with bendbeaver that the mental health argument trotted out by the right is a dumb argument. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t the main issue with gun control along with the ease of access to weapons which are unnecessary in any legit use. It also speaks to the dissociation of younger generations when we discuss it as a health matter, not just a mental health matter. Lack of access to health care and quality education are the reasons people slip through the cracks. Those are the professionals who are best trained and equipped to identify any issues related to health and wellness of mind in our young. Until we admit that a consistent investment in those infrastructures is the only way to sustain productivity, ingenuity, security and economy, we’re just going to get guano loco stats like yours above made up and regurgitated with effects detrimental to reason and progress.

            Guns do save lives… usually from people using guns. But who doesn’t report this? If it’s a national story, like Marty Flynn’s was, then everyone reports it. If it’s a local story, local media handles it. Regional media pick it up sometimes. Sometimes something makes the event interesting enough to be more widespread. I don’t understand this argument at all.

            Again, I wouldn’t use a gun in my home. Why would I? That’s just a stupid idea for so many reasons. Mine and my family’s safety is the foremost of those. I suppose if there’s some invading army of gay terroristic Commie abortionists roaming the wild streets of Eugene, I might open a window and help my neighbors drive those pinkos out of town. But that’s just a hypothetical… well… it is in my mind.

            Actually, psychotropics have many disastrous effects on many misdiagnosed patients. They have also been used by military personnel for decades… and not for PTSD, rather for regular duty in wartime. They are the real gateway drugs and more insidious than any street drug. Anger, rage and violence will occur when these drugs are involved… one way or another. There is a reason those people are prescribed those meds in the first place. Think about that.

            Completely agree about training and responsibility. But that would be a reasonable use of our time and a solid discussion. It’s also a discussion you have been bashing all along. Most gun control advocates just want these “onerous regulations” to be the norm, nothing more. But when someone tries to have that discussion we usually get a specious Hollywood stage show involving cold dead hands or some such nonsense.

          • Ayy Lmao says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +2 (from 4 votes)

            You think a bat. hammer or what have you is going to protect you and your family against a couple or more thugs? “Mine and my family’s safety is the foremost of those,” clearly not.

            Police are minutes away when seconds count. And if you don’t think that I have the right to use a gun to protect my loved ones you can go straight to hell.

            Fundamental right. You’ve heard this a million times and you are probably sick of it. But tough shit.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -5 (from 7 votes)

            You’re the point I made. you’re afraid, you buy a gun to alleviate the irrational fear. The result is that the gun will more likely kill someone accidentally, unintentionally, used for suicide, or in a domestic violence situation than it will be used to protect yourself from a criminal. Hey, thanks for being a part of our well regulated militia, though.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Yeah… I don’t think you know what your fundamental rights actually are. And I don’t think you’ve read much of what I’ve written.

            Here are some numbers you can use for your edification on home invasions/burglaries:
            http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt

            I suppose if you’re a poor, single mother living in a mobile home without an alarm system, and you’re afraid of your violent ex, you can rationally commence your pants-peeing.

          • Ayy Lmao says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            Jack, the Supreme court seems to disagree with you that the right to bear arms IS a fundamental right. I don’t associate with republicans or democrats, I rather classify people as American or Anti-American. If you are against the constitution and against God given rights you are no better than a supporter for anti-rights and oppression.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Ayy, you know this depends on the situation. If you have time to get the gun, load it, and get into good position then the gun is superior. If the gun is stored properly, at least by CA law, there’s rarely time to do that.

            California also requires that you can’t act with more force on the perpetrator than necessary, so if he’s in my home without a weapon, I might not be able to shoot him (A jury would have to decide, but the defense would argue I used excessive force since he didn’t have a weapon). This will vary by State, but here that’s what I’m dealing with, and it makes a bat a better alternative.

            I have various weapons, all for different purposes.

            My only use for a gun, outside of target/hobby, would be hunting in a doomsday scenario or killing commies and zombies at the door in an economic collapse, where I had time to load and get into position.

            California is awful. They make it very difficult to protect yourself. Even pepper spray is regulated (I think 2oz) and knives can’t be more than 4″. Gotta protect the criminals from excessive force!

            Jack, the Supreme court seems to disagree with you that the right to bear arms IS a fundamental right. I don’t associate with republicans or democrats, I rather classify people as American or Anti-American. If you are against the constitution and against God given rights you are no better than a supporter for anti-rights and oppression.

            Agree, anti-gun = anti American. It’s just like attacking free speech, which some people are doing…

            Free speech exists specifically for the dissenter, the outcast, etc. If everyone agreed, there would be no need for free speech–it was specifically to protect minority opinion. Yet, that’s who is being censored. The very annoying person who you want to tell to STFU is the exact person free speech is meant to protect, and that person is the litmus test. We’re censoring that person under the guise of bullying and “trolling”, so we are failing.

            I don’t jerk off to the founding fathers like a lot of guys do, but I definitely respect their wisdom (they came from the exact govt free people would want to avoid, so they knew what needed to be done) over bendbeaver and Jack — no offense, dudes. I’m sure Jack will now start the Bircher crap.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Jack, the Supreme court seems to disagree with you that the right to bear arms IS a fundamental right. I don’t associate with republicans or democrats, I rather classify people as American or Anti-American. If you are against the constitution and against God given rights you are no better than a supporter for anti-rights and oppression.

            Oh yawn! Heller overturned more than 200 years of accepted Constitutional law and interpretation with 64 pages of wtf. I think Scalia is corrupt anyway. But Scalia, being the extreme idiot he is, actually opened the door for more stringent gun regulations. The NRA set everything up for this eventual lawsuit (starting in 1977), and they figuratively shot themselves in the foot.

            The militia clause will be upheld by a rational court in the future. When the Constitution was written, white male adults were actually required to own a gun and to report with it when called upon by POTUS to form a militia… for the security of a free state.

            Yue kneed too due sum lurning dood.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            It’s also a discussion you have been bashing all along.

            I have? Since I bought a gun a few years ago, I made it well-known I was training with a professional. I even talked to some people (GWH comes to mind) from this site about it via emails. I did that out of common sense and the logic that not knowing how to operate a weapon could lead to accidental death. If most people don’t have that sense, then a public service announcement is fine so then they would. It should end there. But it doesn’t…

            Your “fact” about “rape” skyrocketing as a result of gun control was debunked two years ago when the whackadoodles made up those “facts” to make more money off the pants-peeing public

            You can’t say something like that without sourcing it, then quote guberment stats as valid. There are no valid stats regarding guns, as I mentioned many times. They are ALL lies. Which makes sense since this is a “i hate guns/i like guns” argument at the core, and to win a debate that is opinion people need lies.

            We have a right to bear the gun. What is the problem? Just leave us alone, people who insist on getting involved in everyone’s business. If you don’t like it, promote safety, not stripping rights.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            The problem is that not all people with guns leave other people alone, whether through intention or stupidity. A stupid guy with a knife is less likely to hurt or kill someone than compared to a stupid guy with a gun.

          • krogercomplete says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Why leave it at a public service announcement? How about mandatory safety testing for gun purchasers? Does mandatory testing for auto drivers get your back up?

            You have a qualified right to bear the gun–if this debate was solely about whether to ban all guns or to allow them with zero regulations, then you’d have more of a point here. In the huge chasm between those two positions there is actually a discussion to be had without throwing your hands up and saying things like “leave us alone.” Guns in society impact everyone.

            I’m sure Jack will respond to your statistics argument, but it seems a cop-out to declare the debate a matter of opinion and all statistics are lies. Surely there are some objective facts regarding the impact of guns on society that can inform this debate, even if they are difficult to discern, and even if there is alot of misinformation out there.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Your “rape” and violent crime stats from Britain are not the same as they are here because they report violent crimes differently than we do. But whackadoodles know this and exploit those who do not by making stuff up. Even the stabbing thing in the UK is overstated because it was taken from a survey of poor sections of metro areas and extrapolated to include the whole of the country. Guess where the vast majority of stabbings occur in the UK?

            These debunks are not hard to find by simply being inquisitive when introduced to some “fact” that just sounds outlandish on the face of it. That they are viral due to social media memes (and yours are recognized as at least three years old and having been debunked a couple times since) should give you some indication of their validity.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)

            Even the stabbing thing in the UK is overstated because it was taken from a survey of poor sections of metro areas and extrapolated to include the whole of the country. Guess where the vast majority of stabbings occur in the UK?

            Yeah, that drives up US gun violence, too. Anyway, stats are worthless. Too many cultural differences, random variables, misunderstood data points, and purposely distorted data.

            The problem is that not all people with guns leave other people alone, whether through intention or stupidity. A stupid guy with a knife is less likely to hurt or kill someone than compared to a stupid guy with a gun.

            Man, not really. It’s hard to shoot someone with a gun. I take it you have never shot one based on how you’re talking. But it takes some skill to hit a target, especially if distant and/or moving. But even close range is difficult, which is why they recommend shotguns for home defense. Duress and pressure make it even harder to get a good shot. It’s why Blazer’s suggestion of a bat is a good idea. A knife is easy to kill with. I know a lot of guys who train in self defense, and they do NOT want anything to do with knife fights or people wielding knives. My friend said to just run away if I ever encounter someone with a knife, even if I have a gun…apparently they are some of the most grizzly altercations and most difficult self-defense scenarios.

          • angry angry says:
            VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Never mind, re-read your comment. “A stupid guy with a knife”…so you mean an idiot wielding it around in the air? Yeah, agree, a gun is bad in that scenario. Which is why a public service announcement would be a good thing for everyone. Anti gun people would get some action, and the pro-gun people I know support smart/educated use. I can’t think of any issue both sides agree on more than that one.

            Most gun owners are responsible and know it’s a beautiful right, so they’re not being idiots with their guns, and will actually call someone out or correct someone who is (we do this all the time at the range if someone is mishandling the gun). The range is shut down temporarily to “talk to” (i.e. “wtf are you doing?? this is how it’s done”) the person, and many times the person is kicked out entirely.

          • Ayy Lmao says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            “Hell, even a quick study of history will tell you that the immigrants of yore faced all the same discrimination, segregation and abuse immigrants of today face.”

            Are we debating discrimination or abuse? There you go bringing in the “race” card so to speak.

            “But why wouldn’t you fact check before you parrot outright lies?”

            Fact check? These are the facts. This is the real raw data. Please, I will be happy to oblige where you think these facts are lies. Instead, you come barging in calling out with nothing to back your argument. Instead, you pull the usual discrimination card.

          • Ayy Lmao says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            And Jack, are you denying that welfare spending is the largest item in the federal budget? The total amount spent on these 80 plus federal welfare programs amounts to roughly $1.03 trillion. Where do you think this money goes? If Americans use only 30% of the total welfare, where does the rest go? Enlighten me. You and I already know the answer and I’ve already stated it above.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Ayy, your earlier point was to attempt to paint immigrants in a negative light by trying to say they’re basically welfare sloths. The trillion dollar number is including things generally not considered welfare. You’re trying to skew definitions and numbers to reinforce your point. Race and discrimination is an issue in what you’re saying, because people have been anti-immigrants since the first whites got here. Whichever wave of immigrants there were in the past, they faced the stereotypes and generalizations you’re promoting above. Also, if you consider paying taxes to provide welfare, you’re going to feel like a victim. Why do that to yourself?

          • Ayy Lmao says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: -1 (from 1 vote)

            What do you not understand? Race and stereotypes aside. The fact of the matter is immigrants do not assimilate and truly are welfare sloths. The data is behind it, you can choose to believe or not believe that is your choosing. But, it is ignorant to disregard the matter.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Do you have a link for your data?

          • Ayy Lmao says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            http://cis.org/Welfare-Use-Immigrant-Native-Households

            Knock yourself out.

          • bendbeaver bendbeaver says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

            Interesting read, thanks for posting. I think you’ve drawn some false conclusions from the data. It’s a snapshot, not a comparison to past waves of immigrants. What it is saying is that immigrants from the south have difficulty getting higher wage jobs, therefore receive food stamps and they, or their children, are on Medicaid because they aren’t getting insurance from their employer. Your conclusions are probably guided by fear, thinking that we’re ruined because the new folks will be intergenerationally welfare dependent. What’s more valuable are longitudinal studies showing how the 2nd generation kids born to immigrants are better economically and educationally than their parents, which is why they came and what we want.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Without a doubt, welfare spending is not the largest item in the federal budget. You can trot out Jeff Sessions’ numbers all you want (83, btw). But many of those programs are things like tax credits, grants, loans and rural services. Who do you think pays for Rinky Dinky, USA, to have clean water… then treat waste water.

            Americans don’t use only 30% of total welfare. 30% of households with American-born head of households use welfare. And of the households that are headed by foreign-born people, almost all of the welfare recipients receive said welfare to care for their native born American children.

            I need to be given actual numbers on what the average size of a household really is for both demographics before I get technical. I would imagine foreign-born households support more people, both immigrant themselves and native born. But for the sake of argument, we’ll do a one-for-one exchange.

            50% of 13% of the population receive some kind of welfare. It doesn’t say how much. It just says some form. Again, we’ll just call it all equal for now. Then 30% of 87% of the population also receives some form of welfare.

            Although, if you want to extend welfare to your 83 listed by Jeff Sessions, that number skyrockets. Everyone who receives a Pell Grant… everyone who flushes a toilet into a public sewer… every native American reservation and its inhabitants… everyone who claims a child on their taxes… and on and on and on.

            That 30% looks a lot wrong compared to that $1.03t you claim.

            Now, shall we talk about why non-war defense spending, defense spending, Homeland Security spending, foreign aid, defense R&D and interest payments on national debt (which is due to excessive defense spending) aren’t all combined to show us what really is the largest item in the US budget? And that would be just straight up spending. If we wanted to take your $1.03t model for welfare “spending” and apply that to defense spending, we could probably double it with all the tax credits, subsidies, loans/grants, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

          • Jack says:
            VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
            Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

            Crap… I just thought of something now that we’ve redefined welfare. Everyone who drives on or benefits in any way from a public road uses welfare.

            That ought to change the percentages a little.

    • Jack says:
      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      So what legislation did this guy pass?

  • locationoregon says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)

    Sitake interview from yesterday. Sorry if it has already been linked.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/beavers/index.ssf/2015/10/watch_fundamentals_the_focus_f.html#incart_river

    • BeaverBill BeaverBill says:
      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

      Pretty telling interview. Having to spend so much time on enforcing the fundamentals that it takes away from scheming for the team they are playing. Again, I don’t see this as a coaching problem as much as a bad left over low hanging fruit player problem from the tree of Riley.

  • scotty says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)

    Coaches Hot Seat losing credibility points:

    “Our recommendation to Mike MacIntyre: Beat a Very Average Oregon State team on Saturday son!”

    Very average Oregon State team? I’d love to have an average team this year! We downright stink… THIS year.

  • Beavblazer Beavblazer says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)

    regarding the gun topic, heard this rant from adam carolla the other day related to the topic. It’s a little different take on things, and worth a listen if you have a few minutes to kill. Fast forward to around the 23:00 point in the podcast. He starts out talking homelessness/family, but eventually ties it together with the recent shooting at Umpqua CC.

    http://cdn46.castfire.com/audio/522/3444/25318/2562572/2015-10-09acs_2015-10-09-033612-7770-0-5592-1.64k.mp3?cdn_id=46&uuid=60770db1d70e6ac538c30bc2b36a8a51&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fadamcarolla.com%2Fadam-resnick-and-jeff-abraham%2F

  • Shontay Vasquez says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

    At the end of the day if you have the right combo player’s on the field that display

    Strength + Power + Speed + Vision = W. I. N

    Storm, Day, Nall, Lucas, Vic, are just a few among many others who can help in a big way to get the job done!!

  • ObjCritic says:
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)

    Andersen said a QB has to make plays with his arm, legs and mind. Collins is not meeting two of these criteria, and is partially delivering as a running qb. I say partially, because it sounds like he makes poor and selfish choices on when to keep the ball, and when to hand off. He clearly has running ability, but his decision-making indicates he might need limiting.

    Couldn’t Baldwin limit Collin’s decision authority for a majority of the game and essentially say “You are not choosing the option. You will hand off.” It seems analogous to limiting a young, throwing QB who is mistake prone, by simplifying routes, reads, progressions in order to develop some team success and confidence. Another term is “vanilla offense” which I know is not popular, but if Collins is not meeting Andersen’s three criteria, then it seems telling him he has to hand off provides the RBs with more opportunity and makes evaluation of Collins’ performance more simple.

    Then, if there is some success and progress, Baldwin could gradually expand Collins’ decision authority.

    His passing sounds atrocious. Mizell detailed one pass play example at WSU where some apparently mistook one of Collins’ passes for intentional grounding because it was so inaccurate.

  • Recruiting Updates

  • Categories

  • Archives