MercedesBerater

Both have rampant poverty, drug crime problems, and Chicago has mental health facilities that closed down under Reagan. If nuclear warfare is scary, and we know it kills a huge amount of people very easily.. Why then does the entire civilized world worry about disarming and decommissioning nuclear warheads? So here, a tool of death is tried to be eradicated if the owner (the country) isn't stable and pass muster. And the ones that already have nukes think they should be allowed to keep them? We preach to every country about their nukes when we have used ours! .... I see similarities there to the gun debate... But our society is too immature to come up with a way to protect its citizens. Maybe because gun death is big business!!? $ 229,000,000,000 a year. That's right... Billion. That's a lot of medicine, band aids, hospital bills, bullets, and more guns for people to purchase to have the illusion of safety.

they shot his *** as soon as they could or more would have died. Thank god the good guys had gunsthis is ludicrous- gun nuts still skip over the point. I thought good guys with guns on site would prevent the shootings?I thought gun free zones were the problem?! Here "good guys with guns" were there and it did NOT prevent anything. Whatever the hell that is? Show me two guys with guns... Who's the good guy?

Taft Union high school shooting. Armed guard on staff. -- gunman was talked down by a teacher. He set his weapon down.... Columbine. Armed guard on staff.

Ft. Hood shooting. Military base... Hmm I wonder if there are any trained marksmen there with access to weapons? Damn.... If only a good guy with access to a gun was there on a MILITARY BASE!!!

Um... No. They attack where they want to make an alleged wrong known, and "make someone pay"

Except from : http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2013/04/gun-free-zones-mass-shootings The argument claims to explain both the motive behind mass shootings and how they play out. The killers deliberately choose sites where firearms are forbidden, gun-rights advocates say, and because there are no weapons, no "good guy with a gun" will be on hand to stop the crime. With its overtones of fear and heroism, the argument makes for slick sound bites. But here's the problem: Both its underlying assumptions are contradicted by data. Not only is there zero evidence to support them, our in-depth investigation of America's mass shootings indicates they are just plain wrong. Among the 62 mass shootings over the last 30 years that we studied, not a single case includes evidence that the killer chose to target a place because it banned guns. To the contrary, in many of the cases there was clearly another motive for the choice of location. For example, 20 were workplace shootings, most of which involved perpetrators who felt wronged by employers and colleagues. Last September, when a troubled man working at a sign manufacturer in Minneapolis was told he would be let go, he pulled out a 9mm Glock and killed six people and injured another before putting a bullet in his own head. Similar tragedies unfolded at a beer distributor in Connecticut in 2010 and at a plastics factory in Kentucky in 2008. Or consider the 12 school shootings we documented, in which all but one of the killers had personal ties to the school they struck. FBI investigators learned from one witness, for example, that the mass shooter in Newtown had long been fixated on Sandy Hook Elementary School, which he'd once attended. Or take the man who opened fire in suburban Milwaukee last August: Are we to believe that a white supremacist targeted the Sikh temple there not because it was filled with members of a religious minority he despised, but because it was a place that allegedly* banned firearms? Proponents of this argument also ignore that the majority of mass shootings are murder-suicides. Thirty-six of the killers we studied took their own lives at or near the crime scene, while seven others died in police shootouts they had no hope of surviving (a.k.a. "suicide by cop"). These were not people whose priority was identifying the safest place to attack. No less a fantasy is the idea that gun-free zones prevent armed civilians from saving the day. Not one of the 62 mass shootings we documented was stopped this way. Veteran FBI, ATF, and police officials say that an armed citizen opening fire against an attacker in a panic-stricken movie theater or shopping mall is very likely to make matters worse. Law enforcement agents train rigorously for stopping active shooters, they say, a task that requires extraordinary skills honed under acute duress. In cases in Washington and Texas in 2005, would-be heroes who tried to take action with licensed firearms were gravely wounded and killed. In the Tucson mass shooting in 2011, an armed citizen admitted to coming within a split second of gunning down the wrong person—one of the bystanders who'd helped tackle and subdue the actual killer. True security in our schools and other designated gun-free places may require more. Forbidding firearms alone clearly won't keep violence away—not least because of how easily bad guys can get their hands on guns. Nearly 80 percent of the mass shooters we documented obtained their weapons legally. Indeed, America is anything but gun free. We now have more than 300 million firearms in private hands. In the last four years, nearly 100 state laws have loosened restrictions on them. To varying degrees, every state except Illinois now allows guns to be carried in public. All of which raises an obvious question: If more guns in more places is a solution to the bloodshed, then why did we just witness the worst year for mass shootings in recent history?

Your spare tire wasn't designed to kill people.

^ That's cops being trigger happy- another problem in our society. What's wrong with a taser!!?? So there are 100's if not 1,000's of examples, statistics, and case studies on why guns are the problem... Can anyone cite a reputable source where guns save lives when a mass shooting occurs? Just one? http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/armed-civilians-do-not-stop-mass-shootings

The title of the thread is "you get what you want in society" Here is what I believe to be some out of the gun debate issues that causes our rampant gun problem. 1) problem: wealth inequality has parents working multiple jobs to keep their family unit afloat Cause: Families are not together as much, less parental supervision and bonding and raising children 2) problem: education system bogs kids down with homework and the mindset that more work equates to smarter kids Cause: kids are stressed with more homework than ever, more activities like sports, dance, band, tutoring, and anything and everything to build their resume to get into college, instead of learning. This puts huge stress on kids, and they don't have time to play and learn to problem solve on their own, or build relationship skills. 3) problem: Technology. Facebook, Twitter, iPads, video games Cause: kids have their faces stuck in a screen and have no relationship skills, they either are part of the club or are an outcast. And then the outcasts are pointed out with all the social media... I think this society we've created is causing mental health issues that coupled with the easy access to human killing tools -- lets be honest, that's what guns are designed for - turns into rampant murders... Whether in a school, or on the streets. Just an idea as to something other than guns being the only issue. Still don't like guns, but I respect the 2nd amendment right to own a firearm. But it's the only amendment that has the phrase "well regulated"

Studies on gun culture and how it correlates to video games, society, tv, laws, types of weapons, etc. http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4 And gun murder is higher in the south- where guns are more prevalent & laws are looser.

http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1

The Swiss army has long been a militia trained and structured to rapidly respond against foreign aggression. Swiss males grow up expecting to undergo basic military training, usually at age 20, after which Swiss men remain part of the "militia" in reserve capacity until age 30 (or age 34 for officers). Each such individual is required to keep his army-issued personal weapon (the 5.56x45mm Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers, medical and postal personnel) at home. When their period of service has ended, militiamen have the choice of keeping their personal weapon and other selected items of their equipment. In cases of retention, the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed; the rifle is then returned to the discharged owner as a semi-automatic or self-loading rifle. To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a permit, which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security. (They still have LESS guns than we do... And they are all trained as a military. We have a military PLUS all the civilian gun owners) Switzerland has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world, with 45.7 guns per 100 residents (ranking below only the United States, Serbia, and Yemen in this measurement).

The President has only expanded gun laws,the opposite of what he campaigned on: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/whats-obamas-record-on-gun-control/ http://uspolitics.about.com/od/Gun-Control/a/Gun-Laws-Signed-By-Obama.htm http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/still-no-international-gun-ban-treaty/

I'm not afraid of our government, it's made up of citizens, not some super being that controls us like puppets. And our military, it's Us. Do you think it's absurd that a Marine or army soldier is going to kick down your door? I think the video makes the gun-control sides points- which always get stifled in the media. In the comedy skit he equates gun owners saying f*** you don't take my guns when we ask for very basic protections to slave owners who said f*** you don't take my slaves. I'm a responsible slave owner, I don't mistreat my slaves, I keep my slaves locked in a safe. We have had something like 45 school shootings this year alone! These kids are able to get guns too easy! It's not that gun-control advocates want no guns. We want it harder to get. It doesn't seem like that's too much to ask. For law abiding citizens it won't be an issue. We have proficiency exams and renewals for driving... Why not guns? Or- what if you had to have liability insurance for your guns? Guarantee if a gun owner was responsible for leaving a weapon unlocked and a child gets his hands on it - guarantee you'd see less crime. People would be responsible... And things would change.

The columbine high school DID have an armed guard on staff. I believe less guns is the solution. Still no responses to the points made in this skit? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoeumJDT4Q&feature=youtu.be

Doubt any will watch the whole thing..... Like he says. 50% agree, 20% aren't paying attention, 20% know it's comedy - but they're valid points, 10% of you are furious.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DaoeumJDT4Q&feature=youtu.be

Marantz 7055 vs. Rotel RMB1555 Marantz rating is with 2 channels driven. And I went to a store today to pick one up and hold it. It's so light! The sales guy said the Rotel RMB1555 is much more amp for very similar price. Seems he's correct?

Looking into this setup. 1) Either Oppo blu-ray Or Marantz bluray. HDMI to 2) Marantz AV7702 XLR to 3) Marantz MM7055 (X2 for total of 10 power channels - was going to do a 7055 and (2) 7025's , but that costs $400 more and going this route I can use the 7055 with one channel not used for my front stage - less load on amp, should give cleaner power to front 3? That's where my heads at now)

In the Chicago-land area? (I'm about 1.5h from Chicago. 1.0 from burbs) Going into burbs today- not to purchase, just to touch and hold.

So, after days of scouring everything I can find I've slowly steered away from Emo. I'm heading into the suburbs of Chicago today with the wife for 2 year anniversary and to find a Marantz dealer to check out the 7702 and the Marantz amps. Biggest reason I switched- no Atmos support from Emotiva. And I want that option, and I think Marantz has a pretty good history when paired with Klipsch? (Read that Marantz doesn't play nice in sandbox unless amps are paired just right- so for ease I'll just do all the same brand)

That was kind of my though- my a/v rack has one dedicated 20A circuit, and twelve 15A outlets on one circuit. I figure the initial start up is the big pull of power to fill the capacitors, So if I power on the rack in a sequence it should be ok. Just wondered what these pull while in use- I can't seem to find that spec, only Idle power and max watt.

Oh I know nobody here would outright bash anyone's equipment out of respect for the addiction. I was just adding to the dialogue because you never know who is lurking and might chose to not buy a speaker or equipment based on something that's said. - I have never heard the cinema setup, but just the name says what it's designed for, so it makes sense. Back to the Eno discussion --- Does anyone know what normal amperage/watt draw is when in use? The back of equipment gives a max watt usage, but what is a normal watt/amp draw? Wondering if like scrappy said - use the xpa5 and xpa2 would make more sense power consumption wise, or if a group of xpa1L Is about the same power consumption. I would think even a xpa5 And xpa2 would both require a dedicated 15A breaker each. No?

I'm sure there's merit to the cinema and thx lineup- however, I don't find them appealing. I think the palladium are pretty- but not my style. One must remember they are not just speakers, they are furniture, they are art, they are statement pieces. For me, the big boxy stature of the RF7ii with the big ole' copper woofers starting at you. They look hulking and menacing to me. I don't care for curved and futuristic speakers, and I don't care for the heritage style either- the sound is great- but the appeal just isn't there. And for my room and budget- if I spend 40-50k on everything to build the room and fill it with blindly electronics and chairs... The leap from my current setup to "the next level" is a big leap. I think it's a big diminishing return slope after rf7's (in my style of speaker) But yeah, to say rf7's are nothing? I know- you were being hyperbolic for effect to prove your point- But I'd challenge 75% of listeners cant pick out a winner between my setup & a thx setup when in the same room / electronics.

100 grand and you are gonna use rf-7ii??? I don't know the final build cost, as it's not done- I doubt I'll get to 100k. probably not even 50k if I add up all electronics and every drywall screw. the whole remodel will add up to 100k I'm sure of that, but the HT alone, no. I was exaggerating for effect- most people think a bose htib is a killer setup, And then they will walk into this HT and it'll be like a 100k room in any normal persons eyes/ears.