mmoan2

I'm not a big fan of horror movies, but here's mine: Aliens Evil Dead (an old classic low-budget one you really need to see) The Shining Psycho Misery? Silence of the Lambs? Jaws? I guess I do like me some "horror" movies!

I'm going to bow out of this one after this post because it is a golf forum, but I must address what you've said above because I usually find your arguments very compelling but I really disagree strongly with much of what you've said. Removing the inner-city stuff is impossible when discussing gun crimes because that's the BIGGEST problem with guns in the U.S. It's not Sandy Hook or Columbine, it's 25 kids a day shot dead in South Chicago. How do you "remove the inner-city stuff" from Honduras or Guatemala? You don't, because the countries themselves are violent. If you want to say that the U.S. is really many distinct cultures and that addressing gun violence is different in disenfranchised urban centers vs. other parts of the country, that's a valid point. However, we are still one nation with a single set of federal laws. If you want to argue that state and local governments should set more gun control policy, I could buy that, too. But it's not working. SOMETHING is not right. Something needs to be done. I'll defer to the university experts on that, but I studied public policy at the graduate level and worked in a state governor's office for three years. It's part of my job to analyze public policy, and Arizona was ground zero for gun law discussion when they had several controversial pieces of legislation about concealed carry, removal of gun-free zones, etc. for a while a few years back. I've got some experience looking at the issue. I will need to read your article, but I know many people in the mental health industry who have told me that firearms make suicide much more prevalent because it is an easy way to do it. Without getting too gruesome, use your imagination. A single trigger is by far the easiest way to do it. I've been told that most people give up on suicide when a simple solution is not available because much of your body is repelling the urge to do it. Suicides by firearm are often committed by people who are not highly motivated. A fleeting moment of extreme depression is enough. I like your statement that "you can't look at a multi-faceted issue..." You're correct. Everyone here is pretty much playing "my evidence is better than your evidence" at the amateur level. Including myself. But we are all concerned citizens, so that's what we can do. No one here is motivated enough to drop what they're doing and join a public policy think tank.

Don't be so sure about that. You can do fine, but there is overwhelming evidence that shows two-parent homes are far more economically secure than single-family homes by and large, and that it is easier on children. I also don't buy that marriage is only about feelings. That's quite another topic, but part of the marriage compact to me is all about security, "settling down," and the like.

Here's a link from good old Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate Even if you eliminate all categories except homicides with guns, the US is by and large much worse than other what are considered "1st World" countries. Most of the nations ahead of the US are impoverished, often with a heavy presence of drug cartels, civil unrest, poverty, and illiteracy. Eliminating suicide, however, seems like a bad idea when arguing this topic. 18+ thousand suicides a year from guns. Many of them could have been avoided with certain measures. Interestingly, though, firearms deaths are way DOWN in the US from the mid-1990s. Like cut in half.

Disagree. If anything, government should encourage families now. I have no problem with tax advantages for a married couple, through a religious institution or JOP. The evidence is overwhelming that single-family homes are much harder on children, and require far more government resources to support children and their single parents.

I read the whole thing and respect the opinion. I even agree with the premise to a degree. If instructors in a school were armed and trained, they could prevent far more deaths when an armed killer enters the room. I also agree that making it mandatory for every classroom instructor in any school to have a concealed firearm is untenable for several reasons (aside from being wildly expensive and just honestly dumb). I don't see what voluntary arming of teachers will solve, though. I would wager that 95% of college professors wouldn't arm, and 80% of other teachers wouldn't do it. So out of the 15 or so mass shootings in the past 5 years, 1 or 2 may have had fewer casualties. Mass shootings are not the big problem, though. 273 of gun homicides since 2009 were due to mass shootings. Almost 12,000 gun homicides occurred in 2013 alone. That's nearly 60,000 over a 5-year period. Then there's nearly 19,000 annually from suicide. Another 90k or so in 5 years. Suicides are 5 times more likely to occur when access to a firearm is available. It's much quicker and easier. For every "who cares if you want to kill yourself" you might throw out there, there's a depressed bullied teenager who ends his/her life over something small. And as to mental health - it's a red herring. Serious mental illness, like bipolar 1 or paranoid schizophrenia with hallucinations, etc. are not as common in these cases as you might think. Social anxiety disorder, depression, etc. are so common among youth that I couldn't see crisis intervention helping much unless the parents buy in. Anyway, enough said from me. Enjoyed the reads.

I forgot about that movie! Poor Don Cheadle, and the rest of those guys!

Perhaps, but I don't think many would want to take that chance. Anyway, this is getting a little silly. We've gone from talking about gun laws to deciding whether or not a trained MMA fighter could dodge bullets, and from whom. It was a fun conversation while it lasted, but kinda OT, in my opinion.

Engaging in these hypotheticals and situational discussions misses the point of how to approach systemic change. I haven't read everyone's take, but I really got involved in this topic when I had to change my plans drastically a few weeks ago because a sniper was found in Phoenix shooting at cars randomly on the interstate I drive on every day. It pissed me off enough to look into the "gun control" issue. It is undeniable that the United States has far more civilian firearm fatalities than other industrialized nations. We are 13th in the world for ALL nations in per capita firearm deaths. We beat out Nicaragua and are just below Mexico. As far as "rampage-related shootings," where a single gunman kills multiple people with an unclear motive, we are by far the worst industrialized nation in the world. Almost 300 dead since 2009. Norway is next at about 80 people. I'm pretty libertarian, but I also work for the government. Sometimes legislation is necessary. Senseless deaths like these rampages, and gun homicides in general, are an issue that must be addressed in this country. Stronger background checks, waiting periods before purchases, licensing requiring classes, technology requirements like fingerprint ID,etc. None of these solutions is the final answer, but I don't see how you can't support a systemic, comprehensive reform of firearms laws in the U.S. Clearly as a nation we can't play nice on the playground with our deadly toys. The teacher needs to step in. Like she did with the drinking age in 1984 and the DUI laws of the 90s.

I respect you, but I would take an untrained nut with a gun over Anderson Silva any day of the week from 20 feet away.

Thanks guys. I'm writing now with a big ice pack on my arm. Lamenting that I put my golf bag in the garage for a few weeks...

After fighting off back problems due to overexertion (just joined a gym after a 20 year hiatus and got carried away), I just tore my rotator cuff in my right arm now overdoing it in the swimming pool. It's a minor tear luckily, but it's a pain in the, well, shoulder! Can anyone share advice/experience about how long it would be prudent to wait before golfing again due to this injury? By the time my doc can get me in, I'm hoping I'm cured. I think 40 hit me harder than most... Thanks

Maybe you should just play Par 3 courses Seriously, golf is an awfully frustrating game. There's no solution except to keep working at it and it will come to you. I quit it for about 10 years because I was too frustrated with my inconsistency. I would wager that your entrenched bad habits creep up on the course. Most people who work hard enough at the game can do well on the driving range by masking their bad habits with repetition that works in spurts but not for the long haul. Throw in hitting from rough, around trees, over sand traps, off non-flat surfaces, and it gets ugly real fast. Sometimes at the range if I just want to hit balls and not work on my swing I'll hit out of divots with alternating clubs for humility. An 8-iron out of a deep divot, then a 4-iron, then a PW. I'll "mock play" a round, not hitting the same club twice in a row, trying to hit fades or draws as if it was a dog leg, etc. I would recommend signing up for evolvr and get real friendly with your favorite high-speed camera if you want to improve. A year from now you'll be flirting with par on that Par 3 course. Good luck.

I play them now. They do have a high trajectory, especially on long irons. I love the 4 iron. The stock grips are very playable. I have the sweatiest palms known to man and I still play the stock grips. The lofts are all strong, but the TM gimmick is that they are longer because of the stronger lofts, but still have a nice, high ball flight that lands softly. I added 5-10 yards per club with a better ball flight. I couldn't get my old 4-iron to spin for anything. I can hold greens at 200 yards with this 4-iron (when I hit them , like 1 out of 4 tries). You can find them for $400 on EBay now. Go get them!

A penalty works as well, though it could be argued that by not playing, you can't win any points and that's a penalty in itself.

They do need to make it a mandatory requirement to compete in all Fed Ex Cup events to win, though (I'm looking at you, Sergio). I understand why you'd want some time off, etc., but that loophole diminishes the event, IMO. Let's just let the Warriors take the first round off this year and go to the Western Conference Semifinals because they'll probably kick the pants off the 8 seed, right?

There was an article in Golf Digest a few months back where the author stated that he, speaking for many tour pros, would prefer the Fed Ex Cup over The PGA Championship definitely, Open Champ probably, US Open maybe, but not the Masters. The $10m was the primary reason. I always thought the argument was a little flimsy.

You have been rude and disrespectful. You've said several times that all of the theists in this thread are guilty of cognitive dissonance, don't understand the basic laws of logic, one guy is the spokesman for the Dunning Kruger Effect, etc. Maybe not as bad as "your mother is a snowblower," but don't tell me they're not personal attacks. The evidence you seek isn't possible because religious thought is the antithesis of scientific thought. No one is going to wow you here with proof that Jonah slept in the belly of a whale for 3 days or that Jesus turned a few loaves of bread into a feast for 5000 people. Or that Mohammed saw a vision of Allah in a cave, or that I spoke to a crocodile yesterday and it told me God is a grasshopper. Faith in a "higher being" is a leap past logic. What Soren Kierkegaard called belief in the absurd. For all that science can declare about mechanical laws, it cannot describe love, metaphysical phenomenology, infinite regress, etc. What's the smallest particle? An electron? A quark? An energy string? What's the basis of matter? Even though a scientist can describe how the circulatory system in a snake works, he/she cannot answer WHY it does work. This vessel moves blood through here, with oxygen and nutrients accelerating the cellular renewal process, etc. Why does this process work? I don't know, it just does. Just as theists would say about God. He/she/it just is. Check out Wittgenstein, I'm telling you. It'll blow you're friggin mind.

The pros here will offer you better swing technique advice than me, but if you consistently strike the ball before the turf, it is the key to iron play. Working on mechanics is obviously key, but when you're playing a round, you shouldn't be doing that. I used to have an awful time with irons, and if I started to top the ball again mid-round, my swing thought became to literally feel like I was driving the ball into the ground, which at least gave me solid contact. I might hook my 4-iron 190 in the woods, but it felt better and was more rewarding than a 75 yard topper.

Read the Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas. Pay particular attention to the tracts that describe the Cosmological Argument for God and those that suppose the books of Genesis and Exodus are parables and not to be taken literally as many fundamentalist Christians do today (the world is 6000 years old, sticks to snakes, etc.). Don't have the passages memorized here. Read An Introduction to Logic by Cohen and Nagel. An excellent, short textbook on the principles of logic. Read The Birth of Christianity by Dominic Crossan . The best account of the historical Jesus and the religion's foundation I have ever seen. Read Alasdair McIntyre's After Virtue, Richard Rorty's Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, and Ludwig Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. There's a good reading list for a mid-level university theological philosophy course. Wittgenstein is the atheist of the bunch, and a very good read. His main contribution to philosophy is that all of this talk we are having is just a bunch of language-games that have no mirror to the reality of physical nature. When you say "chair" or "God," you are describing an accepted upon definition that exists within a club of like-minded people. "God," if it exists, is perhaps nothing like our particular definitions for what it REALLY is.

Only good scars, though Philosophy is a tough sell in a market economy, but everyone IMO would do well to at least try some ethics or political phil classes. The metaphysics stuff gets a little wacky.

Oh, no offense. Now I'm with you. I just was a little confused.