JJFIVEOH

Sample size, he needs at least 70 games. :P

Just started listening, probably not worth watching, eh?

Mass shootings are up while homicide rates continue to drop. We've established that fact. What are we going to do about it?

They're all the same, the media just chooses to glorify the means by which they're carried out. Percentages easily fluctuate in high numbers when the overall totals are low to begin with.

I'll answer your question as soon as you tell me how my data about decreasing homicide rates is steering the conversation off the topic of gun violence and mass shootings. Because if I can't use decreasing homicide rates as a factor in my point that the problems are getting better, then I can't continue any further.

I'm not dragging anything off topic, it was simply a point that society is focusing on an emotionally driven agenda when there are other, more preventable issues at hand. Stop with this 'I'm not playing your games' with everybody you disagree with. I've provided you with stats, I've provided you with data and I've asked you for proposals. You have neither provided a proposal nor can you refute the data I've presented. You want a 'conversation' yet you've offered no substance and turn around and criticize me for providing mine. Doesn't seem like much of a basis for a conversation.

That's not defeatist. You want something done, something is being done. Homicides are at their lowest 'per capita' in 55 years and the lowest total since 1968. 300,000,000+ people, no valid proposals............................. that's not defeatist. If we were on a mission to save lives lost due to preventable incidents, we should starting with texting while driving. Not sure why we're focused on the hundreds of lives lost in mass shootings as opposed to the thousands lost by texting. But I think we've been over that already. ;) This is good, maybe we can discuss this later. I have to go shopping, Pastajoe made me hungry.

Correct, UCC is not governed by the Board but the loophole applies to all third-level institutions. The reason they brought up the Board's ruling is because UCC adopted their policy. According to my first link............. "Under state law, people in Oregon could carry concealed firearms on college campuses like the one where a gunman killed nine people and wounded several others on Thursday. However, Umpqua Community College has been established as a gun-free zone thanks to a loophole in state law that has made every third-level institution in the state almost entirely gun-free. Here’s how that works."

Maybe legislators don't do the work because they think there is nothing they can do. Perhaps, for once, they think the people don't want government to control their lives despite incidents such as this. As has been mentioned, homicides have dropped every single year for the last two decades, nobody talks about it. Tens of thousands of lives have been involved in this decrease in crime but everybody focuses on the mass shootings. Improvements have been made, steps forward have been taken. Perhaps legislators recognize this and it's the reason why nothing is done. Perhaps legislators recognize that nothing substantial can be down without taking away our rights which would just make matters worse. People need to stop focusing on what is presented to them by the media and look at the big picture.

We have a conversation every time this happens. So does the media, so does society. It won't go anywhere without a proposal. You're right. And I specifically pointed out that the rule applies only to those associated with the school. If a shooter enters a building on campus, it's not going to do much good if the only people that are there are the students and faculty who are not allowed to carry. Sorry, next time I'll say it's a 'gun free zone except for those not assoicated with the school'............ even though I was also referencing past incidents that took place in gun free zones. ;)

Sorry if I wasn't more clear. I wasn't implying that we need to arm everybody. My post was more of a general statement supporting PA's point that kids today should be taught how to defend themselves. Kids are growing up given the impression that somebody else will be there to protect them at all times. It really had no bearing on the arguement. Risk is a small part of living in a free society. It's easy to say we have the tools at our disposal, it's easy to say we shouldn't have to talk about mass shootings. What isn't easy is finding a solution, if it were that easy we wouldn't be talking about this. What is your proposal?

Everything is fair game if you decide to violate the rules. Anybody is allowed to conceal carry on Oregon campuses, as long as you're not associated with the college. The states took it upon themselves to ban any firearms, concealed or not, for anybody with a business agreement with said college. That includes students, faculty, contractors, etc. http://www.vocativ.com/news/236421/the-complications-of-oregons-guns-on-campus-laws/ http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2012/03/oregon_state_board_of_higher_e_7.html It's also reality. You can't trust everybody else to ensure your safety.

Big Pharm lobbyists....... What is your proposal? Students SHOULD need to learn how to protect themselves at school. Universities are the most common target of all mass shootings. College females take courses on how to defend themselves from campus rapists. They shouldn't have to, but they do to reduce the risks of getting raped. I don't keep from driving defensively because I shouldn't have to, I drive defensively because it makes the road safer for me. There is almost no way to protect everybody 100% of the time, there are people out there that will kill others without a second thought. We can wait while we try to figure out why they do it, or we can educate people in self-defense in the meantime. We shouldn't have to, but it's not helping if we don't.

I'll go back and check. I might stand pat for now, looks like you're busy with other proposals as it is.

Whenever a shooting occurs there is a race between the White House preaching gun control and the networks scurrying for information to try and decide whether the shooter was liberal or conservative. It's a pathetic display of sensationalism from all sides.

As do I, as do I.

I don't think anybody is posturing, and nobody is forgetting the victims. And I haven't heard anybody say that some are victims because they aren't prepared. The debate coming from the gun rights advocates are that if you want to arm yourself, you should be able to do so. They're not saying if you get shot then it's your own fault. Here is yet another case of a mass shooting in a gun-free zone. If we try to find a common denominator that's probably the biggest one. Gun deaths have decreased year by year for close to two decades now despite record growth in firearm ownership.

No doubt. Bylsma didn't seem too pleased with the effort.

Somebody did run headlong at the active shooter. Probably saved lives. Probably would have ended sooner if he were allowed to be armed. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/forget-oregon-s-gunman-remember-the-hero-who-charged-straight-at-him.html

Helmet must be on too tight.

WGR up to their usual doom & gloom after a loss. It's pre-season, guys. Half the players will be in Rochester tomorrow, the Wild had their opening night roster on the ice......................... it's not the end of the world.

I haven't used it this year, but doesn't the WGR app carry the game?

That was a mid 2014-15 game. Each instance the Sabres had half AHL'ers on the ice.

What do you want for Keenan Allen?

Thanks. It's more about relocating. Would really like to get out of here and am looking at 3 or 4 areas, so my search has been limited to those areas. Once I find something, then I can settle things up down here and move on. Starting to consider something temporary just so I can relocate and become local, increasing the chances of finding something in my field in one of those areas. Where is 'here' for you?