Time for a new "Mass Shootings" thread

Does that relate to the child being born breach, or the conception being from behind?

 

Getting back on topic:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/0...oney-where-their-mouth-is-with-gun-insurance/

I really think this makes sense. You want a gun? Buy a very expensive insurance, the same way that you are required to if you drive a car, but with higher coverage and higher premiums.

And I know that "somebody" is going to argue, that there are unlicensed uninsured drivers.. but, let him say it..

 

yeah, that's a good argument. since we know that a law is not enforceable 100 percent of the time, let's not even bother passing that law.

 

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's ass." Oh, scratch that ... there's no way we're ever going to stop that from happening.

 

dude, I there's no way I'm coveting my neighbor's ass. unless I ask myself, who is my neighbor? because the people that live to my immediate left and right have asses than no one will ever covet.

 

Now, does not say anything about the neighbor from accross the street? That's one I can covet....

 

apparently your neighbor could be anyone - and don't covet their asses!
Luke 10:25-37

New International Version (NIV)
The Parable of the Good Samaritan

25 On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 “What is written in the Law?” he replied. “How do you read it?”
27 He answered, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’[a]; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b]”
28 “You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do this and you will live.”
29 But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 In reply Jesus said: “A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he was attacked by robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. 31 A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. 32 So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. 33 But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. 34 He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, brought him to an inn and took care of him. 35 The next day he took out two denarii[c] and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’
36 “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”
37 The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.”
Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.”

 

Now, does it say anything about the neighbor from accross the street?

That's one I can covet....

 

There's something to be said for that Iceland and Germany official names list.

 

My wife often says that. She has an unusual first name that people struggle to pronounce and spell. She says there should be a law against people making her mama's mistake.

She's mostly serious, I think.

 

"The problem is not the lack of gun control laws but the lack of nationally uniform and effective laws.”
This is the other mantra. It may have some truth.
How "laws" are calculated, is another thing. NJ has 21 counties & 565 independent municipalities. Each has the authority to enact ordinances regarding firearms.
http://smartgunlaws.org/local-authority-to-regulate-firearms-in-new-jersey/
"Township of Chester v. Panicucci, 299 A.2d 385 (N.J. 1973), is the most authoritative case concerning municipal power to regulate firearms in New Jersey. In Panicucci, the Supreme Court of New Jersey interpreted section 40:48-1(18), holding that a statute regulating firearm discharge for hunters did not preempt a more stringent local law regulating firearm discharge for hunting and other activities. The court determined that the legislature did not intend to completely occupy the field of hunting safety to “preclude municipalities from also dealing with local aspects of the problem.” Regarding section 40:48-1(18), the court held that the legislature did not intend to preempt the field of firearm control when it adopted a state gun control scheme, and that section 40:48-1(18) may be used by municipalities to regulate the sale and use of firearms."
For examples, there are hundreds of Local Firearms Discharge ordinances in NJ. Are these part of the 20,000 laws?

Perhaps we need a MADD equivalent for firearms crimes. In some areas, the MADD crew analyzes the disposition of DWI cases, to see where charges stick & where they are dropped. Of course, statistics vary widely. One agency might charge everybody, and be content to see a certain percentage downgraded or dismissed on factual, technical or legal grounds. Another may charge fewer people, but based on solid cases, and pursue each case vigorously.
So, when MAFV (Mothers Against Firearm Violence) gets going. they can follow the course of arrests & charges for both possession of firearms (where there are statutes prohibiting or limiting same) & crimes committed with firearms.

 

I blame Nomar's daddy. He & Mia followed a different tradition, when they named their boy Garret, after her late brother, instead of Terrag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quvenzhané_Wallis
"Wallis was born in Houma, Louisiana, the daughter of Qulyndreia, a teacher, and Venjie Wallis, Sr., a truck driver. "Quven", the first part of her name, combines her parents' first names, while her mother has stated that zhané means "fairy" in Swahili."
I'm afraid to ask what Qulyndreia & Venjie mean.

 

I believe there is at least a correlation with being born of parents who were born by calipers to the head.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html?_r=1&

The cost-benefit balance of having a gun in the home is especially negative for women, according to a 2011 review by David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. Far from making women safer, a gun in the home is “a particularly strong risk factor” for female homicides and the intimidation of women.

In domestic violence situations, the risk of homicide for women increased eightfold when the abuser had access to firearms, according to a study published in The American Journal of Public Health in 2003. Further, there was “no clear evidence” that victims’ access to a gun reduced their risk of being killed. Another 2003 study, by Douglas Wiebe of the University of Pennsylvania, found that females living with a gun in the home were 2.7 times more likely to be murdered than females with no gun at home.

Regulating guns, on the other hand, can reduce that risk. An analysis by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that in states that required a background check for every handgun sale, women were killed by intimate partners at a much lower rate. Senator Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary Committee chairman, has used this fact to press the case for universal background checks, to make sure that domestic abusers legally prohibited from having guns cannot get them.

As for the children whose safety Ms. Trotter professes to be so concerned about, guns in the home greatly increase the risk of youth suicides. That is why the American Academy of Pediatrics has long urged parents to remove guns from their homes.

 

Wait just one second. Are you suggesting that we are supposed to love . . . TAKERS? I thought we were only required to love Makers.

 

but but but the Constitution says that I have a right to own a gun!
and the framers of the Constitution were the smartest people ever!
and and besides, kids can choke on small objects all the time! do you want to outlaw or regulate small objects? or what about swimming pools - kids fall into them and drown all the time!
and I'm a responsible gun owner - as evidence, I present the fact that no innocent person has ever been shot with my gun - yet... that I know of... at least while I was the owner of it... honestly can't tell you what happened to it after I sold it to my uncle Bob, and maybe after he sold it to his buddy from work.

 

AFAIK, the Founders also expected that gun to be a single-fire musket, with a reload time of about one minute, presuming dry powder, also, that you to join the local militia.
We can't all be as fast, as this guy.

Looks like it almost blew up in his face the final time. No attempt to aim, either.

 

And there's no way their fake ID would work!

 

or alternately, you can argue that everyone who wants to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms is free to join the US Army! not sure that will fly with the NRA though.

edit: to be technically correct though, the 2nd amendment does say "keep and bear arms."
I suppose one can reasonably argue that keeping arms means owning them - or keeping them at home whether via rental or ownership.
but it also refers to a militia and the security of the state - thus it was clearly not meant to ensure personal security, but rather within the context of belonging to a state regulated militia with the express purpose of protecting the state/nation. kind of the way the Swiss do it I suppose.