shs96

That's complete and utter b/s. If the same number of people were killed in the same situation with a different weapon, I guarantee you this would be just as big of a national news story. Don't let your politics cloud your vision. By the way, nearly every week at least one person is killed in Cleveland with a gun and you don't hear too much about it, so obviously the "anti-gun conspiracy" isn't too strong of a theory. And why do you hear more about gun murders? Because an alarmingly high percentage of murders are committed with a gun. As to your previous assertion that there would still be a problem without guns, of course! But it likely wouldn't be as large of a problem if people didn't have access to such a deadly weapon. Why are guns the magical weapon that everyone has a right to, but not other weapons like grenades, rocket launchers, dangerous chemicals, and B12's? I don't know if I've ever seen a gun rights supporter answer that one. I don't give a shit about gun rights and my position has nothing to do with politics. You've completely failed to understand my point based on your own preconceived notions and political beliefs. So spare me the lecture. You admit the problem would still exist if no gun was involved, which is my point. Granted the severity of a singular incident may not be as bad, but that doesn't mean the problem wouldn't manifest itself into something just as severe down the road or under different circumstances without a gun. The issue I am trying to argue against is there is a larger problem that have nothing to do with guns. And I get the impression that everyone seems to think that if you just removed the gun, that this is a problem, but it's not really that big of a problem. It's only a really big problem because the kid got a gun. "Fix the gun problem and we can just kind work on the other stuff." People are basically turning a blind eye to the actual problem, or getting complacent about it...i.e., if he's not shooting someone, he's identified in the school system as a troubled youth, so eventually we'll figure it out. And I just don't feel that to be true. So instead you can just go back and forth about gun laws all you want. You can melt down every gun on the face of the planet for all I care. So now what are you going to do to actually fix the problem? What is being done to prevent kids from reaching this point?

Conviently for you, Hts121 posted the text of the law. Can you point to the exception of the law that allows a gun to be sold to a 17 year old?

I am not sure what you heard, but in the State of Ohio, a person must be 21 years of age, pass a national background check and fill out a firearms transaction record to purchase a handgun. The shooter was 17 years old. So the assertion that he was the gun owner and obtained the gun legally is patently false.

The topic was first brought up on post 347. My last post was 396. That's 50 posts on the topic. 33 of them touched on violent crime rates and/or guns. The rest were general comments about how awfule the situation was. The only real suggestion I've seen to prevent something like this from happening again has been to modify or enforce existing gun laws. To me, that qualifies as "most of the talk". I was generally keeping my commentary to the confines of this board since that I would not have any visibility to what others are discussing outside of this forum.

You don't hear about beatings and stabbings because it's not news worthy. There's not the associated story line of guns and gun control to couple with it. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Again, let's say this kid didn't have a gun. Yes, he's not shooting other kids. Can I prove that he would have stabbed someone yesterday instead? Or beat them with a bat? No. But I will not be convinced that this person would not have been a problem in some way shape or form down the road. So we stop him from shooting someone and the problem is solved?

I think people are suggesting that he might stab one person instead of shooting 4 people. I really have no idea if gun control laws are effective, so it's never my first response to something horrible like this. But I don't understand dismissing them out of hand just because there are underlying roots to violence or because no policy will ever stop all crime. I'm not dismissing them out of hand, I'm suggesting that among the issues to address when trying to ensure something like this doesn't happen again, enforcing or changing gun laws would not be my first priority. Yet that seems to end up grabbing most of the attention.

And I don't own a gun and I don't want to own a gun. But access to guns does not have a direct correlation to gun related violence. Violence in general is a refelction of society. If people are using guns to carry out violence, it has nothing to do with gun availability. It has do do with a culture that creates this environment where you're getting all pissed off that you decide to shoot someone. Of course, people will instead just perseverate over the minutia of the gun laws and never consider "if no one wanted to use a gun to harm people, it wouldn't matter whether there was a gun available or not."

The point is, if gun laws were enforced to the strictest extent of the law, we still have a kid with problems on our hands with a propensity for violence. If you're suggesting that had he not been able to access a gun, he wouldn't have caused a problem, you're naive. He's going to turn to something. A gun, a knife, a baseball bat, a gardening spade...or maybe he goes down a non-violent path and turns to drugs, alcohol and becomes another high school drop out who who at some point indirectly causes societal problems. Or kills someone in a drunk driving accident. This isn't about guns. This is about raising our youth and putting personal accountability on us parents to do the right thing by our kids. You know, maybe not be raised by a father who beats the mother of his son (as well as other women). Or go to extra mile to make sure the kid whose Dad is a repeat domestic violence offender and mom is nowhere to be found is not going to end up doing something like this.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2012/02/condo_lawsuit_chronicles_water.html Whether the problem is isolated to that one building or not, this can't be good for the whoe area.

Here come the gun comments. Not sure why it's surprising to me each time something like this happens that someone thinks its the fault of an irresponsible gun owner or that someone had access to a gun and the we need harsher gun laws in order to correct these problems. Stop treating the sympton and start treating the problem. Reality is we had a troubled youth who was at some point reached out for help (FB and Twitter postings) and no one cared or was paying enough attention to him to do anything about it. Comes from a broken home, didn't seem to have many friends...basically didn't have the proper support system a child needs to properly develop and thrive in life. The fact that he was able to obtain a gun and use it as the avenue for expression isn't relevant to the problem. If guns or firearms didn't even exist, this kid's anger and frustration was going to boil over at some point, in some fashion, and cause some people harm. It's a cry for help. "Do you care about me now?" I just think its realy sad when something like this happens that the primary thing people want to focus on are gun laws. You're completely missing the point and are only clouding the issue with another hot button issue that simply distracts from actually solving the problem.

Exactly. Oil companies in America are exporting oil to other countries. It's among the highest US exports, if not the highest. There's more than enough supply for US oil companies to fuel the US; it's just the US oil companies are not only fueling the US, but India, China, etc.

A lot of backlash this morning on 92.3 when Gary Waters no showed for his scheduled interview.

While disappointing no Cav made the All Star team, never underestimate the power of the "nobody believes in me" and how it can really make players get better. Hope it applies here!

My mom is from that area and I went back there 2 summers ago with my wife to show her my grandma's old house, etc. Thing that struck me was how largely unchanged everything was, even though I hadn't been back there since 1997. And most of the people there had been there for generations. Like a time capsule of sorts. I was glad I made the trip.

Nice post.

I completely agree with this, and am glad you make it a point to say this. But the fact remains, its a pretty consistent message from many others on this board - and within this thread - that if you decide to move to the suburbs you are now "part of the problem". Or that it's completely incomprehensable to people why anyone would ever more to the suburbs. I spent 4 years living in my condo downtown, which I still own, part of which was with a child. I wish I felt like urban neighborhoods were more geared to raising young kids. But I don't, and more specifically, my wife REALLY doesn't. I just don't see how I am to blame for the plight of the inner city because I don't want to tough it out and "deal with it".

I know what you're getting at, but if you're suggesting there's the equivalent of things to do in the suburbs as there is the city, then you've only enhancing the argument of why you should live in the suburbs. Next time you're out on E 4th or in Tremont, look around for a high chair or a kids menu and get back to me.

No, it implies you aren't going to experience the benefits of what you get while living in a city because you won't be doing them. Why live downtown to be close to the theater, sporting venues, restaurants, etc if you are unable to take advantage of these things? You're left with dealing with all the negatives without reaping any of the benefits. And if you don't work downtown, it really doesn't make sense.

^ NP. I, like you, love the city. I also take offense to people who label me as part of the problem when I've never caused problems in the city, committed crimes, made people uncomfortable, or caused someone to think "hmm, not sure if this place is for me."

But "should be able to deal with it" and "not dealing with it at all" are 2 different things. Again, back to what was previously said about proving a point. You're "dealing with it" just so you can say you live in the city? Support an urban movement? Or do you just live where you live because you don't want to deal with certain things? Why is it up to me to be some noble urban trend setter, to "deal with" the pitfalls of urban living? Why am I required to deal with those types of things if I don't want to? Everyone acts like you're "part of the problem" because you've decided "hey, I have enough stuff going on with my life, dealing with people leering at my wife or making her feel uncomfortable is one of the things I'd like to take off my plate. Oh? there's a place you can live that you don't have to put up with that stuff? OK." Blasphemy! What happens to your kids raising them anywhere? Who knows. Is it possible to raise a kid and have them turn out great living in Tremont? Yes. But why? What's the benefit of living in Tremont compared to North Royalton when you have kids? Your life revolves around your kids. You're not going to trendy restaurants or hipster art galleries. You're going to the little gym, dance classes, swim lessons, concert receitals, soccer games, or whatever activities or interests your kids have. And this is where suburbs offer vastly superior programs for kids of all ages and interest levels compared to Cleveland proper, or in general urban settings. So, you as a parent have a choice. Do you 1) live in a urban area where you may have to "deal" with things from time to time like petty theft or getting leered at? Do you want to work a little harder at finding a youth program for your kid to get involved? How many high school kids are living in Tremont who are looking to pick up a few extra bucks babysitting on a Saturday night are there? Oh, but you like the architecture of your house. Or do you 2) live in a suburb where your kids have lots of people their age in the neighborhood, have every possible activity available via the community rec center, and have this high shool girl across the street who doesn't mind babysitting from time to time? Oh, but you may not be thrilled with aluminum siding.

So who thinks the local income tax, particularly the way it is constructed, is a good idea? Many cities only allow partial credit of income taxes paid, so you could be paying more than others in local taxes depending on where you work/live.

I don't get it, I just don't get it. I grew up in Shaker, and by no means am I a "Heights'" Cheerleader, but the architecture of the homes in the Heights' is hard to rival. All those westside tract homes look the same, to me. I dont understand how someone thinks a big, ugly box with an even uglier garage - as the focal point - is safe? I guess the robbers/burglers with taste chose other communities to target. You're a single male with no intention of ever having kids. You're not going to get it, nor are the suburbs desgned for you. Aesthtics don't mean a whole lot when factoring in other things.

Steve Jobs thanks you from his grave! what did you buy? I bought a few shares right after he died when the price dropped. Been kind of steady since then, but really spiked when the earnings report came out.

Wow. I walked from the West Flats to work, then to CSU while I was earning my masters degree...at least for the majority of the time. Certainly quite a bit farther than the on campus south garage! I did ride my bike or take the trolley on occasion. In the summer I mostly walked though. Oddly enough, the CFO for CSU lives in my building and walked to work most days too. Oh-by-the-way...I said "majority of the time" because I had microfracture surgery on my right knee the second week of my first semester. Not allowed to put weight on my leg for 8 weeks. 4-5 months of rehab overall. They have these things called "handicapped parking spaces" you can park in that make life a lot easier. The future value of my degree is dependent on how well the current students perform. Please don't disappoint me.

Happy to report Apple stock is up 13% since I bought it in November!