27 dead at Connecticut school, including 14 kids

[Jason]

molybdotherapy

Treatment of molybdenosis?

[Gallstones]

molybdotherapy

Treatment of molybdenosis?

Probes and forceps

[Svartalf]

molybdotherapy

Treatment of molybdenosis?

shots of lead.

[JimC]

Mozg said something about accepting it as the price of gun ownership. Jim is exaggerating just a little bit.

Risk is part and parcel with individual liberty.

Although incidents like Friday's shooting make sensational headlines and get wall-to-wall news coverage, they are actually not common occurrences and are not a significant cause of death for any age group, and that includes children. The reason that stuff like this makes worldwide news is that it is rare, and it's not a significant contributor to cause of death for minors. Traffic fatalities annually for those age 14 and under in the United States are between 1,300 (2009) and 2,100 (2003) per year, but there isn't the kind of news coverage every time one of those deaths happens so it is easier for the general public to ignore the fact that kids 14 and under are 50 to 100 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than a mass shooting.

Emotional responses to highly publicized events that occur much less frequently than they are perceived to happen due to the way information spreads should not be the basis for infringing upon those liberties.

To say that in the context of 20 dead little children is deeply, deeply sick.

"It's their parent's problem, not mine ; I have my guns, that's the really important thing"

[macdoc]

How does 1,300 deaths from traffic become more frequent by 50 to 100 times, than 3,000 deaths of kids from firearms???

Children and Guns | American Academy of Child & Adolescent ...
http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/policy_sta ... nd_gunsGun violence accounts for over 3,000 deaths and over 15,000 injuries each year among children and adolescents.

need a serious math lesson let alone a compassion lesson.....
••••


Blunt pointed.....and appropriate response...

Guns and the Limits of Shame
Posted by Jon Lee Anderson

What does it take for a society to be sickened by its own behavior and to change its attitudes? That can be asked about questions of power and political repression—and also about distinctive national pathologies. When did a majority of South African Boers realize that Apartheid was reprehensible? How about whites in the American South? When will the Japanese force their whalers to stop, finally realizing that their persistence has caused widespread international revulsion and opprobrium? When will the British realize that public drunkenness—a practice now internationally associated with them as a nation—is something to be embarrassed about?

When will we Americans realize that our society is an unacceptably violent one, that this is how the rest of the world sees us, and that much of that violence is associated with guns? Will it be the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School? Where is our threshold for self-awareness?

A few years ago, the British found their own threshold— with guns—after an event not unlike the heartbreaking tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut. On March 13, 1995, in the small Scottish town of Dunblane, a forty-three-year-old man, Thomas Hamilton walked into a primary school with four handguns and opened fire, methodically killing sixteen children and one adult teacher before killing himself. The unprecedented massacre of children led, within two years, to legislation that imposed a total ban on the private ownership of handguns in the United Kingdom. Today, no one in the United Kingdom can privately own a handgun or a semiautomatic weapon.

continues

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... z2FLQD78P5

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/n ... shame.html

are you there yet????

[Gallstones]

Mozg said something about accepting it as the price of gun ownership. Jim is exaggerating just a little bit.

Risk is part and parcel with individual liberty.

Although incidents like Friday's shooting make sensational headlines and get wall-to-wall news coverage, they are actually not common occurrences and are not a significant cause of death for any age group, and that includes children. The reason that stuff like this makes worldwide news is that it is rare, and it's not a significant contributor to cause of death for minors. Traffic fatalities annually for those age 14 and under in the United States are between 1,300 (2009) and 2,100 (2003) per year, but there isn't the kind of news coverage every time one of those deaths happens so it is easier for the general public to ignore the fact that kids 14 and under are 50 to 100 times more likely to die in an automobile accident than a mass shooting.

Emotional responses to highly publicized events that occur much less frequently than they are perceived to happen due to the way information spreads should not be the basis for infringing upon those liberties.

To say that in the context of 20 dead little children is deeply, deeply sick.

"It's their parent's problem, not mine ; I have my guns, that's the really important thing"

Thousands of people died today, some of them are children and some of them died a violent death or after suffering. Risk is part and parcel with life. Is that a fact or heartless and discompassionate comment intended to show what a blacksouled, core rotted and selfish person I am?

I have shelter and electricity and food and a job and my son is healthy--I should be ashamed.
I'll feel better if tomorrow I lose my job, get kicked out of my house, and get jailed for not praying when I go beg for benefits because that will prove that I am actually a mostly decent human being.

[macdoc]

You really don't get it do you?

[Gallstones]

You really don't get it do you?

You really don't see past your own nose, do you?

[Seth]

Good luck with repealing the 2nd Amendment.

And if by some chance you should succeed, a good many of us will secede.

Where will you go, Seth?

You cannot secede because that is treason, punishable with death. No other country has a ridiculous second amendment, so emigrating will not help continue the insanity.

History is written by the victors, and rebellion against a tyrannical government is the basis upon which this nation was founded and is fully authorized by our history and our Declaration of Independence.

All we have to do is win.

And Texas is a good place to be in that event.

[Blind groper]

Gallstones

I said "amended".
That word should not imply the whole constitution.

[orpheus]

Good luck with repealing the 2nd Amendment.

And if by some chance you should succeed, a good many of us will secede.

Where will you go, Seth?

You cannot secede because that is treason, punishable with death. No other country has a ridiculous second amendment, so emigrating will not help continue the insanity.

History is written by the victors, and rebellion against a tyrannical government is the basis upon which this nation was founded and is fully authorized by our history and our Declaration of Independence.

All we have to do is win.

And Texas is a good place to be in that event.

A good place to be? Not really, no, unless you think the life there will be better. Remember the extreme right wing's positions on other issues. I suspect it would not be a place many of us would like. I certainly wouldn't.

[Blind groper]

rebellion against a tyrannical government is the basis upon which this nation was founded

Your forefathers rebelled against a mildly tyrannical government, and replaced it with one that was massively tyrannical. If you do not believe that, look at the history of slavery, and genocide against native Americans.

[Seth]

To Seth

Re the constitution.

The second amendment, as I keep telling you, is an absurdity.

I'm sure it is to sheeple. To the free people of the United States it's a fundamental and essential protection of a pre-existing right which is specifically intended to prevent Congress from infringing on that right.

No other nation has this idiocy in its constitution.

Who cares? We're not any other nation, we're the United States of America and we do things differently here. We value freedom and individual liberty and our right to keep and bear arms ensures all the rest of our rights. What the rest of the fuckwits on earth choose to do is up to them. They can be slaves if they like. Not me.

it is a historical anomaly based on the need, in the 18th century for a civilian militia.

That just shows how utterly and abysmally ignorant you are of the US Constitution and our law and jurisprudence.

That need has long since passed into the mists of history, making the second amendment ludicrous.

Typical gun-banner bloviating.

It survives purely because of the pro-gun lobby loony groups, which make its repeal politically inexpedient.

Damned right it does, and we're going to make sure it continues to survive into the future, at any cost.

The fourth amendment does not cover people coming into the home at the invitation of the home owner.

Entry by coercion does not constitute an "invitation." My right to privacy and security in my home, papers and effects trumps some bullshit plan to violate my privacy concocted by an idiot who doesn't even live in the US.

The fifth amendment, according to your interpretation, would prevent drivers licences being required, which is also ludicrous.

Nope. Driver's licenses are not the property of the individual, they are the property of the state that issues them. Moving about on public highways is a right that cannot be licensed. Operating a motor vehicle on the other hand is not a right, so the state can license such operators and condition that license upon display of the license upon a lawful demand of a police officer when one is operating a motor vehicle on a public highway. One is not obliged to present one's driver's license in any other context whatsoever, except in court during a hearing regarding a traffic offense.

Keeping and bearing arms is an individual right not dependent upon membership in the Militia, thus sayeth the Supreme Court. Therefore, the government cannot require a license before one can exercise that right.

You shouldn't try to teach your grandpa how to suck eggs, boy. You know nothing about the Constitution, or constitutional law. I do. You're out of your league sonny.

[orpheus]

Your posts are good entertainment value, Seth, I'll say that.

[Kristie]

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean someone isn't out to get you.

And it's not paranoia if someone IS out to get you, which happens to be true for gun owners. Hoplophobes and gun banners ARE out to get us, which makes our fears entirely rational and reasonable.

Out to get you? I wish you no harm. I would like to smack you upside your head, but I certainly don't want you seriously harmed. You really are paranoid.

Taking away my guns directly harms me by eliminating my ability to defend myself effectively or respond effectively to a call to duty in the militia.

It directly harms me to have my fundamental civil rights disparaged and infringed upon for no good reason.

When did I say I wanted to take away your guns?