Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo in 2013!!
I don't really know what you are trying to say here.
"the factor for gun ownership" what does that mean?
Im not trying to be cute, I am genuinely trying to understand your post.
Think of it like this. With a complex relationship to anything like cause of murder by guns there should be a large number of variables that impact it. So you have a list that might go something like this:
ownership = A training = B income = C rural or urban = D gender = E etc etc. =
As you test a relationship you'll develop an equation like this:
Y = zA + yB + xC + wD + vE....
Each one is independent of the other and should have some impact on the number Y. You have to get the data, test the data and develop the equation to know precisely how it will work out. But each variable makes it's own contribution to the result but cant change the impact that others make.
I see. That is food for thought. I feel, at first thought, that this plays into my view that this is a cultural issue. Here is why: I personally believe that cultural issues are a larger factor than gender when it comes to gun murders. I don't have any proof to back that up so I will have to dig some things up to try and quantify this.
Ultimately my point is that more guns does not directly relate to more gun murders. So, the opposite must be true as well.
Here in america, we have entirely too many guns, and too many gun murders. I believe this is a result of our culture more than anything.
The culture in Brazil is nothing like the culture here in America. They have a really high per capita murder rate, despite the fact that Americans have 9X as many guns as they do per capita.
Education is the way. Keeping guns in the hands of responsible Americans and out of the hands of irresponsible Americans is important too.
A free for all where any addict, thug or psycho can get a gun quickly is a bad system.
I 100000000000000% agree that assault weapons shouldn't be available to everyone. War weapons shouldn't be available to the general public either (although I don't see anything wrong with certain people having access to them*).
*In some countries you have to belong to a gun club or something to that affect for a year and go there at least X# of times, get signed off from an officer at the gun club that you went, and shot a weapon. Some even make you provide proof of mental health, and that own a lockable safe for your gun. If someone wants to stock up in case of some crazy unrealistic danger, and they prove that they are mentally stable enough and capable enough to treat the equipment with respect, and are trained, and registered and all that, I see no harm in it.
But, again, I agree that me being able to walk into a local gun shop and get an AK-47 a week later is pretty dumb. I had 2 very close friends (one was pregnant) gunned down by a jealous ex boyfriend with an AK-47. I remember both of their memorial services. I remember how awful it was.
John Manuel Marquis is serving a double life sentence for murdering Steve and Blossom.
Here is the kicker. She was scared and called me first. I was sick, and she was pregnant so she didn't want me there to make her sick, so she called Steve. I would have been the one dead had I not had a cold.
John was a psyco who had access to an AK-47. But if he couldn't buy that, he probably would have bought something else with the same end result.
My friend Adam, not long after that, became depressed. He also knew Steve and Blossom. Maybe this had something do do with his depression and maybe it didn't. Anyways, he walked into WalMart one night and walked out with a shotgun. He drove over to the mall and sat in his car and blew his brains out.
John could have bought a shotgun instead and had the same result.
This is not just some off the cuff discussion I am having with you guys, and I don't take this lightly. I love being an American, I really do. Some things piss me off about our "government" but in the end, there is amazing opportunity here. I wouldn't trade living here for anywhere else. And a major reason I love it here is because of the freedoms I enjoy.
And I will always want to protect my freedoms and the freedoms of my children. Always.
So lets start with something we can all agree on. 6 week waiting period for all firearms absolutely zero exceptions. Can you agree that would be a good thing?
Hmmmm, 6 weeks is a bit excessive. What is the difference between 6 weeks and 4 weeks? Would it cut down on gun murders? If the answer is yes, then I would sign on for this.
However, I also believe that if someone has a certain kind of license or whatever, they should be able to get a gun within a few days.
For example Flanzo goes in and goes through a course to get an "A rated" gun license or whatever which includes psychiatric testing, immense classes, and a very rigorous identification process and he is proven to be a sane, quality member of society why should he have to wait the same amount of time that some dreg does?
If it saves lives, and doesn't infringe on my freedom to own a gun, Im for it.
Surf, what would be so bad about putting some stricter restrictions on gun control in your country? I understand that you dont want to lose any "right" because you are a "free American", but what harm could this possibly do? Why does the average American even need to have a gun ( if its not fur hunting)? I dont see how this would take away from everyone's freedom? I ask this as an outsider looking in because I really cant wrap my head around this mentality?
First of all, you quoted my response to someone else's post. To quote it here is completely unnecessary and irrelevant.
Not true. I quoted Chico's comment because I had made the same assertion earlier that you dismissed (that you don't really understand the #'s you're looking at). It was relevant and I assumed you would know I was referring to that line of discussion.
Second, please tell me that you realize that our own government CREATED the problem in which they had to bail the banks out of for their own personal gain. Please tell me you know this. If you don't, you need to watch a documentary called Inside Job.
I think a little respect may be in order since I put up well over 10,000 words on the economy and election over the past year and a half. Am I a world-renowned economist? No. Do I know what I'm talking about? Yes.
The gov't created this mess through decades of deregulation, but in reality the meltdown was able to get going with the repeal of the Glass Stegal Act (if you can tell me what this is without Google searching, I'll buy you a beer at Roo).
LOL @ "Inside Job." My father has worked on Wall Street for 40 years. I worked there for 3. I went to school for economics and finance at a top-20 business school. I rarely do the "toot my own horn" act on this board, but if you decide to question me in this manner, I feel it necessary to remind you that I'm a f*cking boss (quite literally, in fact).
They knew this problem was coming, and because they were making money, ramped it up instead of shut it down. Im just going to have to assume you know that it was the government officials personally that benefitted nearly as much as the bankers in this thing.
Just stop. Please. I don't go to a power plant and start telling them how the nuclear reactor works because I watched a documentary about it, please don't tell me how an economy functions because you watched Inside Job. It's insulting. And please show me with facts, figures and cited sources where any gov't official made hundreds of millions of dollars off the recession.
Also, as a side note, I think it would be much more effective and better for everyone if we set the personal insults and namecalling aside. It doesn't add to the discussion, and only closes each other's minds all that much more.
I'll stop calling you an a-hole when you stop speaking condescendingly without factual backing. Deal?
Although I disagree with your view I do respect it and I would like to be able to assimilate it through as open of a mind as possible and calling me stupid, ignorant, dumbass, etc isn't going to allow me to see what you are really trying to say. I also realize that I have a cutting way to my language and I will cut the shyt, even if you won't.
So you do know that the dirty bastards in the White House made piles of money during the housing boom and how. Good. Moving on. (Yeah, I spoke carelessly when I said that the government officials made almost as much money as the bankers did. It's inaccurate. What isn't inaccurate is that there were many government officials that got paid to deregulate regardless of what it would do to our economy)
Look I'm tired of this argument, and we are going in circles.
You want to be right when you say more guns = more gun murders, fine. I disagree.
I believe this is a deep seeded problem in the culture of America and you think it is tied to gun law. I think stricter gun laws is a band aid on a broken arm scenario, and you think it's the best fix.
So you do know that the dirty bastards in the White House made piles of money during the housing boom and how. Good. Moving on. (Yeah, I spoke carelessly when I said that the government officials made almost as much money as the bankers did. It's inaccurate. What isn't inaccurate is that there were many government officials that got paid to deregulate regardless of what it would do to our economy)
You mean the "bastards in the White House' that were there before Obama was ever POTUS? Not sure why you're trying to tie all of this into why Obama was selfish last night, but sure, whatever floats your boat.
I believe this is a deep seeded problem in the culture of America and you think it is tied to gun law.
Oh for f*ck's sake man, stop acting like I haven't brought up mental health more than you have in this discussion. You are the one who keeps bringing us back to the intellectually stimulating "assault rifles vs. handgun" discussion.
I think stricter gun laws is a band aid on a broken arm scenario, and you think it's the best fix.
By themselves, they'd be like putting a soft cast on a broken arm (not a band-aid, don't be so dramatic). Gun laws, with renewed commitment to mental health nation-wide, and everyone doing their individual part to make this country less and less like the caricature of NYC from the Ghostbusters movie (RIVER OF SLIMEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE) is like putting a hard cast on a broken arm. A soft cast isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing, which is what we're doing right now.
The gov't created this mess through decades of deregulation, but in reality the meltdown was able to get going with the repeal of the Glass Stegal Act (if you can tell me what this is without Google searching, I'll buy you a beer at Roo).
Glass-Steagall was a New Deal-era banking regulation which created a divide between commercial and investment banking. It was repealed in the late 90s and had a part in creating the economic meltdown within the decade.
The gov't created this mess through decades of deregulation, but in reality the meltdown was able to get going with the repeal of the Glass Stegal Act (if you can tell me what this is without Google searching, I'll buy you a beer at Roo).
Glass-Steagall was a New Deal-era banking regulation which created a divide between commercial and investment banking. It was repealed in the late 90s and had a part in creating the economic meltdown within the decade.
Can I mark you down for a beer in my sig?
Good god no, that was an offer to surfbum because I knew he wouldn't get it. You, on the other hand, would be one of the last people on here I'd make that bet with.
But, if you do run into me at Roo, I'll probably just buy you a beer anyway. I buy everyone beer down there.
Personally, kind of sick of the guns argument after five pages, so here's my attempt at redirecting the conversation...
PREDICTION: No deal will be reached on the so-called fiscal cliff until House leadership votes have been taken in the new session. No way is Boehner risking his position over this.
Unemployment benefits for people like my significant other are on the line. After next week, if they don't come to a decision, he doesn't get any money until May. Maybe he'll fInd a job tomorrow, who knows, but as of right now we are Quacked.
Post by kikosanchez on Dec 17, 2012 16:44:56 GMT -5
An interesting thing to note is that gun violence and ownership has actually been on the decline, yet more than half of the country's worst mass shootings have occurred in just the past 5 years. I think this lends even more to the problem of these occurring pointing toward the contagion they are.
Glad to see gun culture is declining though, it needs to rot in hell. I just read this morning a comment on a local newspaper's site basically arguing we all need guns to protect us from the government, because that is why we originally had the right to bear arms...as if this thought wasn't only 1) extremely paranoid, but also 2) stupid, guns vs tanks, planes, drones, c'mon man! This is what we are dealing with people.
Flanzo, with all due respect, I am arguing with statistical evidence.
Before I re-state the statistical proof I am talking about, I would like to address this "assault rifles v hand guns" issue.
I was not the one who brought up the assault rifles. I was only responding to them by stating that it is a very small percentage of guns purchased in the US and that I didn't really think it would make much of a difference. But I also don't think that assault rifles should be readily available to the general public the same way handguns are. It isn't necessary.
Now, as far as our difference of opinion regarding the relationship of the number of guns to the number of gun murders, you definitely are correct when you say that it is factual information I am arguing.
It seem to me that your stance is that more guns = more gun murders and less guns = less gun murder.
However:
The 3 countries you wanted to talk about earlier (Brazil, Argentina and Russia) you now don't want to talk about. Why?
Americans per cap own 9X as many guns as any of those countries, yet they have a higher per cap gun murder rate. This does not fit into your belief that more guns = more gun murder.
Lets look at America by itself. Nearly 90 guns per 100 people in America. (88.1) which is FAR AND AWAY #1 over the #2 country (Serbia). Yet, we are 28th on the list of gun murders per 100,000. Again, disproving your more guns = more gun murders theory.
It isn't as cut and dry as that, man. It just isn't.
There are a lot more factors than just the number of guns and gun laws here. It goes a lot deeper than that.
I agree with you that there should be some reform on the way and speed in which Americans are able to get handguns and other weapons. Wholeheartedly agree. What I don't agree with is your more guns = more gun murders opinion. It is very inaccurate.
I personally think it is inappropriate for someone to own 30 AK-47's and have them in his home.
The NRA is disgusting. I think we can agree on that.
Im tired of arguing in circles with you, and I just don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this. Hence my suggestion to agree to disagree here. But if you want to keep arguing, fine. I can see that you are as hard headed as I am.
LOL @ "Inside Job." My father has worked on Wall Street for 40 years. I worked there for 3. I went to school for economics and finance at a top-20 business school. I rarely do the "toot my own horn" act on this board, but if you decide to question me in this manner, I feel it necessary to remind you that I'm a f*cking boss (quite literally, in fact).
Way off-topic, but studying finance myself, I'm curious what you did on the street and what sort of work you do now.
An interesting thing to note is that gun violence and ownership has actually been on the decline, yet more than half of the country's worst mass shootings have occurred in just the past 5 years. I think this lends even more to the problem of these occurring pointing toward the contagion they are.
Glad to see gun culture is declining though, it needs to rot in hell. I just read this morning a comment on a local newspaper's site basically arguing we all need guns to protect us from the government, because that is why we originally had the right to bear arms...as if this thought wasn't only 1) extremely paranoid, but also 2) stupid, guns vs tanks, planes, drones, c'mon man! This is what we are dealing with people.
Oh you mean we live in a country where people are under the belief that teachers are overpaid, but we should force them to carry weapons in the classroom? Yeah, that's the reality...
LOL @ "Inside Job." My father has worked on Wall Street for 40 years. I worked there for 3. I went to school for economics and finance at a top-20 business school. I rarely do the "toot my own horn" act on this board, but if you decide to question me in this manner, I feel it necessary to remind you that I'm a f*cking boss (quite literally, in fact).
Way off-topic, but studying finance myself, I'm curious what you did on the street and what sort of work you do now.
I interned as a market research analyst at a company that specialized in stocks dealing with green energy. I ended up finding a small company in Southeast Asia that made special batteries to harness the energy created with wind turbines. Since it is an extremely wasteful source of energy, my company ended up setting up financing for it and making a sh*tload, and I got nothing since I was an intern
After that I went to regular cold-calling/stock broking. It sucked. I moved on to a job I actually loved (ETF trader), then got laid off and worked as a waiter for a year and a half before giving up on the dream and working at my current job. I like what I do, it's different each day and I'm good at it, but a part of me always wondered what would've happened if I stuck with finance. If the SEC didn't pay their employees less than I made waiting tables, I would've even considered going into that.
Way off-topic, but studying finance myself, I'm curious what you did on the street and what sort of work you do now.
I interned as a market research analyst at a company that specialized in stocks dealing with green energy. I ended up finding a small company in Southeast Asia that made special batteries to harness the energy created with wind turbines. Since it is an extremely wasteful source of energy, my company ended up setting up financing for it and making a sh*tload, and I got nothing since I was an intern
After that I went to regular cold-calling/stock broking. It sucked. I moved on to a job I actually loved (ETF trader), then got laid off and worked as a waiter for a year and a half before giving up on the dream and working at my current job. I like what I do, it's different each day and I'm good at it, but a part of me always wondered what would've happened if I stuck with finance. If the SEC didn't pay their employees less than I made waiting tables, I would've even considered going into that.
So you never thought of just going into an everyday finance job like corporate or being a financial analyst?
Flanzo, with all due respect, I am arguing with statistical evidence.
Before I re-state the statistical proof I am talking about, I would like to address this "assault rifles v hand guns" issue.
I was not the one who brought up the assault rifles. I was only responding to them by stating that it is a very small percentage of guns purchased in the US and that I didn't really think it would make much of a difference. But I also don't think that assault rifles should be readily available to the general public the same way handguns are. It isn't necessary.
Now, as far as our difference of opinion regarding the relationship of the number of guns to the number of gun murders, you definitely are correct when you say that it is factual information I am arguing.
It seem to me that your stance is that more guns = more gun murders and less guns = less gun murder.
However:
The 3 countries you wanted to talk about earlier (Brazil, Argentina and Russia) you now don't want to talk about. Why?
Americans per cap own 9X as many guns as any of those countries, yet they have a higher per cap gun murder rate. This does not fit into your belief that more guns = more gun murder.
Lets look at America by itself. Nearly 90 guns per 100 people in America. (88.1) which is FAR AND AWAY #1 over the #2 country (Serbia). Yet, we are 28th on the list of gun murders per 100,000. Again, disproving your more guns = more gun murders theory.
It isn't as cut and dry as that, man. It just isn't.
There are a lot more factors than just the number of guns and gun laws here. It goes a lot deeper than that.
I agree with you that there should be some reform on the way and speed in which Americans are able to get handguns and other weapons. Wholeheartedly agree. What I don't agree with is your more guns = more gun murders opinion. It is very inaccurate.
I personally think it is inappropriate for someone to own 30 AK-47's and have them in his home.
The NRA is disgusting. I think we can agree on that.
Im tired of arguing in circles with you, and I just don't think we are going to see eye to eye on this. Hence my suggestion to agree to disagree here. But if you want to keep arguing, fine. I can see that you are as hard headed as I am.
Can you please stop looking at the total number of guns per 100 people and instead look at the amount of gun owners? I mean, if you want to continue this discussion, at least use the proper statistics. Those American numbers are thrown off by people that assemble arsenals. My brother works with a guy who, I sh*t you not, has over 90 firearms. NINETY. He is going to just give my brother one because he "hasn't shot it in a while, still got 20 guns I haven't shot yet that I need to get through."
The # of guns isn't what is important so much as the number of people willing to operate them. A guy only has two hands so he can only shoot 1 or 2 at a time.
To say "It seem to me that your stance is that more guns = more gun murders and less guns = less gun murder" is not true. Obviously, if guns did not exist, they could not be used to kill. That's not realistic, so I therefore won't think of it as a logical solution.
Murders will always happen. They have happened since the dawn of civilization and people have been looking for scapegoats all the way through our history as a species. I'm not looking for a scapegoat, since I know by the time we find one the situation will have changed dramatically and we'll be fighting an opponent that isn't there anymore.
If I was to rank the issues surrounding this shooting:
1. Gun control 2. Mental Health 3. Society as a whole (meaning the fact people don't look out for one another, are selfish, would rather look the other way than stand up for someone, etc.)
I bet if you ranked them, it would go #2, #3, #1, but the point is we identify there are issues with the same areas, you just seem to think the focus of those issues should be on us. You, me, our friends, families, everyone. I don't agree. I think you have to start with the tools. Then you start with the issues, then you start healing as a nation.
Trying to reach every person in this country to be a better person, while a noble gesture, isn't feasible. It's better to do something that can effect everyone (like a law) while you have that power.
And I'm sorry, but more guns DOES equal more gun violence. The figures I gave you explain that infallibly. The United States has less violent murders per capita, but exponentially more GUN violence per capita. That means, the US, keeping with tradition I guess, is a "go big or go home" state. People either kill with a gun, or they don't bother.
So, would murder still happen as it does elsewhere? Yes. Without fail, people in this country would unfortunately still get murdered. Would as many people be murdered, and is the likelihood of a wide-spread gun violence issue be nearly as prevalent in society? No, not even close. It's a lot harder to take out an entire family with a shovel than it is with a glock.
And you don't find it hypocritical to chastise me for using "small, poor" countries in my comparison then saying the US is "28th" (Link?) behind pretty much all countries of that ilk? Btw, where did you find that the US is 28th in gun-related murders? Every figure I see has them between 10th and 15th with Mexico and Brazil being the only two ranked ahead of them with a notable population size.
And a little background on things I've put my head through: Cement brick, garage door, car window (this one was by accident), every wall in my parent's first house, and entire 12'x12' wall of sheetrock (hit a few studs while I was at it), multiple particle wood doors, a watermelon and a gym locker. I'd put my actual head on the line that my head is harder, both literally and figuratively, but only when I know I'm right.
You'll get a respite from this in a bit, the Jets are on and I have to go watch Mark Sanchez end my season for me.
I interned as a market research analyst at a company that specialized in stocks dealing with green energy. I ended up finding a small company in Southeast Asia that made special batteries to harness the energy created with wind turbines. Since it is an extremely wasteful source of energy, my company ended up setting up financing for it and making a sh*tload, and I got nothing since I was an intern
After that I went to regular cold-calling/stock broking. It sucked. I moved on to a job I actually loved (ETF trader), then got laid off and worked as a waiter for a year and a half before giving up on the dream and working at my current job. I like what I do, it's different each day and I'm good at it, but a part of me always wondered what would've happened if I stuck with finance. If the SEC didn't pay their employees less than I made waiting tables, I would've even considered going into that.
So you never thought of just going into an everyday finance job like corporate or being a financial analyst?
To put it in perspective, I graduated college in 2008, I only got the jobs I had because I was interning for the company and they knew they could have me do jobs above my pay grade for cheap. Except the economy wasn't done collapsing when I got laid off, so it was another solid 18 months before financial institutions were hiring at all, and most of them still aren't hiring entry-level jobs without some kind of connection.
It wasn't so much I didn't want to, there just weren't any. And I mean any, I mean there was not a single job I was qualified for that was put on a company website or job website for a SOLID 24 months. I've been here 3 years now, and up until a year and a half ago I was still looking. Jobs just aren't there in NYC, guys like my father (who could trade circles around the new generation of automated trading chimps) take jobs in compliance or in a general role just to keep a paycheck coming. Most of the people who made Wall St. the "Wall St." we all know (meaning Gordon Gecko type of sh*t) are all gone. It's sad, since I loved that place and it was nothing like the way it's perceived to be now, but that's what happens when companies decided they wanted to save a half penny one very trade. The human element left, and with that so did a lot of my desire to work in the industry.
So you never thought of just going into an everyday finance job like corporate or being a financial analyst?
To put it in perspective, I graduated college in 2008, I only got the jobs I had because I was interning for the company and they knew they could have me do jobs above my pay grade for cheap. Except the economy wasn't done collapsing when I got laid off, so it was another solid 18 months before financial institutions were hiring at all, and most of them still aren't hiring entry-level jobs without some kind of connection.
It wasn't so much I didn't want to, there just weren't any. And I mean any, I mean there was not a single job I was qualified for that was put on a company website or job website for a SOLID 24 months. I've been here 3 years now, and up until a year and a half ago I was still looking. Jobs just aren't there in NYC, guys like my father (who could trade circles around the new generation of automated trading chimps) take jobs in compliance or in a general role just to keep a paycheck coming. Most of the people who made Wall St. the "Wall St." we all know (meaning Gordon Gecko type of sh*t) are all gone. It's sad, since I loved that place and it was nothing like the way it's perceived to be now, but that's what happens when companies decided they wanted to save a half penny one very trade. The human element left, and with that so did a lot of my desire to work in the industry.
I'll post up here to agree and say it's very similar in Chicago right now. I dont work in finance, but I hire a lot of econ/finance grads. And there is very little out there for most of them at the moment. A lot of the people I see are perfectly qualified for decent jobs but either couldnt swing their interships into non-contract employee positions that paid a living wage or from what I hear many of them are losing out to computer science grads that are just out there scripting their work.
I am going to my company christmas party (where Im being recognized as Salesman of the Year) so I, also will have to put this discussion aside for now.
Honestly, I think we are too far apart on our opinions and interpretation of the facts to see eye to eye on this, and I am comfortable with that. I will point out some opinions of yours that are not facts, and can not be proven later. However you asked for a link, and here is the link. You can sort by any of the columns so you can count down to US where it is listed as 28th in gun homicides.
At any rate, Go Titans. Any time a NY team loses, everyone wins.
Unemployment benefits for people like my significant other are on the line. After next week, if they don't come to a decision, he doesn't get any money until May. Maybe he'll fInd a job tomorrow, who knows, but as of right now we are quacked.
Katy mae - I'm pulling for him to find a job soon - I wish I had more than positive vibes to send your way.
Unemployment benefits for people like my significant other are on the line. After next week, if they don't come to a decision, he doesn't get any money until May. Maybe he'll fInd a job tomorrow, who knows, but as of right now we are quacked.
Katy mae - I'm pulling for him to find a job soon - I wish I had more than positive vibes to send your way.
Thank you, it means a lot honestly. I just wish congress would take their heads out of their rear ends and realize there are real people out there that their child-like behavior will affect.
5/11/13: Sweetlife Festival
5/16/13: The Flaming Lips
5/20/13: Fitz and the Tantrums
6/7-6/9: Governors Ball
6/13-6/16: Bonnaroo
6/21-23: Firefly (???)
7/11-13 Camp Bisco
8/31-9/1: Made In America
9/27-29 Tomorrowworld (???)
Post by kikosanchez on Dec 19, 2012 16:50:32 GMT -5
I never get why they so often choose presidents, it just seems...unimaginative. It seems they could find a good hero or do gooder out there to give it to or influential person that is making massive changes for the betterment of humanity. At least they didn't give it to "us" again lol. Now THAT was lazy. I did like last year giving it to protestors though, that hit it on the head imo.
Mar 14 Sheepdogs/Fitz & The Tantrums/City & Colour (Austin)
Mar 15 Jim James (Austin)
Apr 26 Jim James (Boston)
May 4 Clutch & The Sword (Portland ME)
Jun 8 DMB (Hartford)
Jun 21 Jim James (Northampton MA)
Jul 27-28 Newport Folk
Oct 25-27 MOEMS
