Mandatory metal detectors at Camden Yards

[Mondo Trasho]

Anyone who would balk at mere seconds asked of you to insure the safety of yourself and the public should simply not attend sporting events, concerts, and should never fly.

We live in a time of heightened security and this will result in some inconveniences and some might feel "needless" scrutiny.

Everything changed in America when they drove those planes into the WTC and frankly, life in America will never be as it was.When people can gain access to guns and bombs and other weapons and officials have at least a fighting chance to expose possible terrorists and other crazies, I say give them any tool to do their job.

Whats the problem?

I don't own OPACY, so whoever does should be allowed to set whatever rules they want about entry. Just like my family sets rules about entry into our home.

That said, while I would never "balk" at having to pass a metal detector, I think it's a silly waste of time. I worked in an airport not too long ago, I've seen first hand how ridiculous this new security is.

Again, not my time and resources to waste on frivolous things that don't enhance anyone's safety. But if someone asked me to make a decision, I'd be against it.

[OFFNY]

Added an extra minute. No big deal. I am used to going on government buildings on Harrisburg anyway.

You're at the game, Mike ???

I'm not at the game.

You bastard.

You should be.

I know.

But ...... you have to take into consideration the fact that I'm a bastard, so ......

[OFFNY]

Added an extra minute. No big deal. I am used to going on government buildings on Harrisburg anyway.

Mike, take a quick peek at the game thread.

Tyler Wilson had quite a good day for AAA-Norfolk.

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showthread.php/143405-vs-RAYS-8-27?p=3605029#post3605029

[SilentJames]

Actually, he only agrees with you completely if you suffered through a prolonged sneeze during the portions of the material that you quoted without bolding and underlining. Contrary to your original assertion, it seems that there is at least some (as opposed to "zero," as you said) evidence to back up Malike's opinions.

Only if you take the most simplistic view of things and ignore things like historical socioeconomic factors:

6 These statistics reinforce the point

that murder rates are determined by basic socio‐cultural and eco‐

nomic factors rather than mere availability of some particular form

of weaponry.

There is a correlation to american gun ownership and lower violence, but even he says that it is far too simplistic a view.

Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely

wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in

the incidence of murder in any particular society.

He only admits there is a correlation, he is not convinced, nor does he advocate that more guns is in fact the CAUSE of less crime/ murder. All he states is that the basic data means that banning guns would not necessarily equate with less crime. But he clearly states that correlation does not equal causation.

[weams]

Only if you take the most simplistic view of things and ignore things like historical socioeconomic factors:

6 These statistics reinforce the point

that murder rates are determined by basic socio‐cultural and eco‐

nomic factors rather than mere availability of some particular form

of weaponry.

There is a correlation to american gun ownership and lower violence, but even he says that it is far too simplistic a view.

Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely

wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in

the incidence of murder in any particular society.

I think we can carry on without any further discussion of firearms.

[MrOrange82]

Only if you take the most simplistic view of things and ignore things like historical socioeconomic factors:

6 These statistics reinforce the point

that murder rates are determined by basic socio‐cultural and eco‐

nomic factors rather than mere availability of some particular form

of weaponry.

There is a correlation to american gun ownership and lower violence, but even he says that it is far too simplistic a view.

Thus both sides of the gun prohibition debate are likely

wrong in viewing the availability of guns as a major factor in

the incidence of murder in any particular society.

So it's not that there's no evidence, it's that you don't like the evidence. The part you quoted said there is evidence in support insofar as that evidence pertains to the United States. That seems clear.

But either way...I'm not planning on reading through 44 pages of material because (1) I don't care that much about the debate (in fact, I'm enough of a misanthrope to say without blinking that I don't care very much at all about the manner in which various persons from various places choose to off one another. People are bat---- crazy, and if there's one thing they'll figure out how to do every single time they feel the need, it's kill one another...guns or no guns); but (2) I AM uncomfortable with the fact that a plainly political debate has been allowed to run on this forum for as long as it has. Do you like baseball? Me too.

[ExileAngelos]

The world around you doesn't have a metal detector. At a certain point you have to believe in the decency of your fellow man and hope that he will not shoot you and your kids as you walk down your street. There is no reason to think that the people running on to the field are any more likely to have a gun that they intend to use on you than it is that the man in the park where you take your dog has a gun that he intends to use on you. Setting up metal detectors outside of every single public area is futile and a waste of time and resources.

Agree 100% What is to stop someone from taking a gun into a crowded shopping mall and doing the same thing?

[weams]

I'm sitting in the stands at Oriole Park at Camden Yards and I have to again ask you to please end this discussion

[SilentJames]

So it's not that there's no evidence, it's that you don't like the evidence. The part you quoted said there is evidence in support insofar as that evidence pertains to the United States. That seems clear.

But either way...I'm not planning on reading through 44 pages of material because (1) I don't care that much about the debate (in fact, I'm enough of a misanthrope to say without blinking that I don't care very much at all about the manner in which various persons from various places choose to off one another. People are bat---- crazy, and if there's one thing they'll figure out how to do every single time they feel the need, it's kill one another...guns or no guns); but (2) I AM uncomfortable with the fact that a plainly political debate has been allowed to run on this forum for as long as it has. Do you like baseball? Me too.

No, I understand the evidence - but correlation does not equal causation - those are HIS WORDS, not mine. Crime and violence are things that have myriad causes and the availability of a particular thing really has very little direct cause.

This is my last word on this because I don't wish to run afoul of the law, but I refused to be accused of skewing the evidence. I agree with the study's findings that there is a correlation, I also agree with the study's findings that the presence of guns in society is just one of myriad factors that lead to crime and that the simple presence of the devices likely has very little to do with overall rates.