F430murci

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

I have heard and read that homicide rate has gone down significantly since tighter gun control laws in DC and that number of murders are lowest since 1963 and violence in Prince George's county lowest in 25 years. . . .

So maybe strict gun laws are doing some good. Now close loop holes, make private sales subject to background check and strict registration. Pass this in all states and eventually we will be getting somewhere

No you heard and/or read wrong. Washington DC, like Chicago are among the 2 most crime ridden cities in the United States, even though the have the toughest gun laws in the nation. However, violent crime and firearm crimes actually DROPPED after the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban on both cities.

DC homocide rates. Sweeping DC gun laws passed December 2008 in response to Heller decision in June of 2008 so actually a bit of a rise the year Supreme Court struck Heller. I would call the post December 2008 gun law enactment drops pretty signficant.

Historic Context

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

I have heard and read that homicide rate has gone down significantly since tighter gun control laws in DC and that number of murders are lowest since 1963 and violence in Prince George's county lowest in 25 years. . . .

So maybe strict gun laws are doing some good. Now close loop holes, make private sales subject to background check and strict registration. Pass this in all states and eventually we will be getting somewhere

No you heard and/or read wrong. Washington DC, like Chicago are among the 2 most crime ridden cities in the United States, even though the have the toughest gun laws in the nation. However, violent crime and firearm crimes actually DROPPED after the Supreme Court struck down the handgun ban on both cities.

Please educate yourself before talking on this subject.

The US Supreme struck down a crazy strict DC gun law in Heller decision (read decision for actual issues and holding) and DC quickly responded in 2008 by then passing what they called the strictest gun laws permissible under the constitution in light of Heller decision. What is incorrect about DC being below 100 murders this year and at lowest levels since 1963?

57 shot to death in DC this year. That is down from 77 shooting deaths in 2011. Problem is DC is next to Va where gun laws are lax and many guns make their way from Va and Maryland into DC, but current very restrictive gun laws appear to be doing some good in DC.

Wow. Does not get worse than this. 6 guys raping and bearing poor girl in front of her boyfriend, then sticking a metal pole up her tearing her insides and throwing her off a moving bus. These are animals, not humans. Disturbing to think people act this way and a society somewhat tolerates such conduct. The demonstrators should be pissed.

Thanks.

Just curious if you, Beech, or any other guys so vocal about US politics and current US problems and events live here or have lived here within last ten years?

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

I have heard and read that homicide rate has gone down significantly since tighter gun control laws in DC and that number of murders are lowest since 1963 and violence in Prince George's county lowest in 25 years. . . .

So maybe strict gun laws are doing some good. Now close loop holes, make private sales subject to background check and strict registration. Pass this in all states and eventually we will be getting somewhere

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

Guns are not strictly regulated. They can buy from private sellers from gun shows, private individuals off street, and do not have to register or pass background checks. They can then carry or take into any state or province they wish.

The problem with DC is one can buy weapons legally sold in another state from private individual and carry it in. Uniform federal registration of dealer and private sales in all states would make black market sales a more difficult proposition and make prices considerably higher for black market purchases.

Nonsense, sir.

What you say they can do, and what is legal, are two different things. You guys blather on about making more laws, but when some are cited (as useless) you blather on about how potential criminals can get around them.

Yes, background checks are required in D.C. The guns must be registered. Fingerprints, photos, and a spent shell for ballistics comparison, are also required.

Further CC permits are not available. The weapon must stay in your domicile (except for range practice, etc) and you must inform police where the weapon is stored and what it will be used for.

Yes, a D.C. resident can buy a gun elsewhere if they have residency status where the purchase is made, but cannot legally bring it back to D.C. without processing it there.

Federal gun dealers cannot transfer handguns to residents of other states. They must be sent to another dealer, and processed according to local laws, then transferred.

Dealers may not transfer even long guns to residents of other states (or D.C.) if that state or district bans such transfers. DC does so.

Here's the "uniform federal registration of dealer and private sales" you said was needed, and contradicts your claims:

28 USC 922(a-c) [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922((3), 27 CFR 178.29] [18 U.S.C 922(a)(3) and (5), 922((3), 27 CFR 178.29]

Enjoy. When you're finished, there are more!

You completely miss my entire point and point u have been making since this began. Gun dealer sells assault weapons to his buddy, they sit next to each othe maybe at same table at a gun show, private guy can sell assault weapon to anyone without background check and without registration. This would include felons from DC or Narcis from Mexico.

Net effect is gun dealer gets increased sells indirectly and guys from DC, Mexico or wherever can get their hands on anything they want. Federal registration such as class III would follow that weapon from gun dealer end purchaser regardless as to status of sellers in the middle.

Also, what is to stop Joe Dirt in Kentucky from selling his AR-15 to a violent felon from DC or his girlfriend as a straw purchase. Nothing, so background, registration, waiting period and some responsibility for weapon ends up ala class III is needed.

From your quoted post...

Studies vave shown that liberals are freer thinkers and have higher IQs than religious and conservative people. So I don't buy your Democrats only try to control and don't adhere ti or "pay attention to the Constitution."

"Moving on. Now what about IQ and racism, prejudice and bigotry? They are all linked as well. According to Psychological Science, those who score lower on IQ charts in adolescence tend to grow up to have Conservative views and may develop prejudiced beliefs as well."

http://m.dailykos.co...ir-counterparts

The Daily Kos???

About the founder:

Markos Moulitsas Zúniga (/ˈmɑrkoʊs muːˈliːtsəs/; born September 11, 1971), often known by his username and former military nickname "Kos" (kōz), is the founder and publisher of Daily Kos, A BLOG FOCUSING ON LIBERAL AND DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLITICS IN THE UNITED STATES. He is also a weekly columnist at the Washington, D.C. newspaper, The Hill, and a contributing columnist at Newsweek.[1]

Moulitsas currently resides in Berkeley, California, with his wife and two children.[2]

http://en.wikipedia....arkos_Moulitsas

(Caps added)

Haha, do you think a conservative Rush Limbaugh type would tout these facts.

Attack studies or message not messenger. Very common knowledge.

Check out percentage of Harvard students that are liberal or percentage of country's professors that are liberal.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2005/4/7/study-finds-academia-may-favor-liberals/

Two news snippets I recall, when I resided in Wash D.C.

>>> while leaving a party of young folks, a black girl was shoved aside while leaving a party. She said, "that's no way to treat a lady." The guy said, "you no lady," pulled out a gun and shot her dead.

>>> In an elevator, a guy said something to another guy who he didn't know, and used the common tag, 'brother.' The other guy said, "I'm not your brother," and pulled out a pistol and shot the other guy dead.

Just two examples of tens of thousands of people shot for no reason. Two lives snuffed out in a second. I realize banning guns won't have much of an effect. It's psychology that's the problem. Sickos are out there. People have to be wily and lucky to stay alive. It probably doesn't hurt to mix with decent people, and those who aren't in to drugs (including the most harmful drug of all: alcohol) or people who aren't religious fanatics (or fanatics of other peripheral belief systems).

And that, by the way, in a city (D.C.) where handguns have been "strictly regulated" for many a year!

Guns are not strictly regulated. They can buy from private sellers from gun shows, private individuals off street, and do not have to register or pass background checks. They can then carry or take into any state or province they wish.

The problem with DC is one can buy weapons legally sold in another state from private individual and carry it in. Uniform federal registration of dealer and private sales in all states would make black market sales a more difficult proposition and make prices considerably higher for black market purchases.

A 35-year-old man was shot to death in

Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania in September when he took a break from a game

of dominoes on a second-floor balcony around 11 p.m. and urinated

over the rail. Unfortunately, an unidentified man was walking

below. He yelled, "Yo! Yo!" and fired several gunshots, killing the

urinator. [National Post, 11-20-2012] [Pittsburgh Tribune-Review,

9-19-2012] from News of the Weird

• 
  

So now we get news of the world on every murder in the US? Give it a break.

The story is about just one of tens of thousands of shooting deaths. It goes to show how, if so many people are in possession of guns, then shootings become more likely (even casual). There is no panacea, no 'silver bullet' solution (pun intended). I'll re-word a comparison I posted earlier. Suppose there are two identical houses, each housing 100 rowdie teen-agers. One house has one (spray) can of mace. The other house has 2,000 cans of mace, located all over. Which house will have more incidents of mace being sprayed if (for example) there are arguments and/or emotional outburts?

In other words, if there are a plethora of guns, there will be an increased incidence of guns being used. More of a factor, is the psychology of gun owners/weilders. That's a more convoluted topic. Of the thousands of Americans I've known over a half century, I can say that gun owners generally have some different perspective on life than non-gun owners. Of course, it's not a black and white topic, but there are discernable differences. I can make a list, if you'd like.

IF there a plethora of guns? There are already 300 million guns out there! The market is already saturated with guns, both legal and illegal. If the criminals and crazies out there have a gun already or can get an illegal one easily, then why should they make it harder for law abiding citizens to get one legally to defend themselves?

It's NRA policies putting assault weapons in the hands of felons.

Easy solutions, mandatory background checks on all purchases including those weapons sold by private sellers at gun shows. Mandatory registration, similar to class III with similar penalties for selling or transfer in violation of registration and mandatory background check.

Penalties with some teeth comparable to class III penalties including those in possession of unregistered firearms.

Stop sale of .223, .570, 7.62 NATO rounds or any ammo for assault weapons. Van assault weapons, sale or transfer of assault weapons and same with large capacity clip and make those weapons grandfathered in subject to Class III federal registration.

Thus would allow non felons, non domestic abusers and etc to still have weapons and deter selling to those that do nit qualify, close gun show loop hole and prevent or strongly deter straw purchasers.

Only a felon, domestic abuser, or someone losing money from gun sales would oppose the above.

From the article, it is difficult to ascertain if it contains ALL people with a gun or just those who have a permit for a handgun. Might want to be careful, you might find yourself facing a rifle.

It will be interesting to see if the rate of breakins on "unarmed" houses ( according to the list ) will increase in future and the rate on "armed" houses decreases.

If that can be proven, I'd imagine that the newspaper will be facing lawsuits by those that got broken into.

With a 1/2 million guns being stolen in any given year, it may be the houses with guns that will be targeted, especially if they have .223s or valuable guns.

You do know the constitution has been amended many times, don't you?

FYI: The constitution has been amended 27 times since it's inception in 1787. The first ten are known as the Bill of Rights and were added in 1791. The last one was added in 1992.

Amending any document 27 times in 226 years seems a rather rare occurrence to me.

It is rather more of a rare occurrence that any nation would be silly enough to try and govern itself on the contents of a document written 250 years ago, a time since when, we have seen the industrial revolution, leaps ahead in terms of technology and armed warfare and the introduction of global financial systems. I guess though when many European countries have houses older than the US constitution you have to hang on to whatever history you can. The gun laws are grossly out dated, simple as that, they were written 250 years ago be men in a different world, with different circumstances and if those founding fathers were all alive today and asked to write a constitution for the USA it would be drastically different to the one they wrote 250 years ago..

Relax. The current administration doesn't pay any attention to the Constitution anyway.

So bitter. Why do gun guys seems so angry and bitter. Warrior gene?

RE: your other post

Not about control. About safety and common sense. Interestingly, it is Republicans that typical try to force their values and beliefs upon others. Liberals typically endorse freedom of thought and independence. Republicans and Chistian right want to tell people how to live, how to think, what to do with their bodies, and etc. Republicans react to fear and insecurity, need structure, and want to be told what to do, how to think and how to live.

Studies vave shown that liberals are freer thinkers and have higher IQs than religious and conservative people. So I don't buy your Democrats only try to control and don't adhere ti or "pay attention to the Constitution."

"Moving on. Now what about IQ and racism, prejudice and bigotry? They are all linked as well. According to Psychological Science, those who score lower on IQ charts in adolescence tend to grow up to have Conservative views and may develop prejudiced beliefs as well."

http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/13/1131220/-Religious-and-Conservative-people-have-lower-IQs-than-their-counterparts

I can't see the issue here.

The NRA types believe that guns promote safety. Then those houses are safe.

Ergo, those houses which are unarmed, will now go buy guns, in the belief that those guns will also make them safe.

Viola, you have a heavily fortified neighbourhood, in the best traditions of downtown Baghdad or Mogadishu, where nothing will ever happen again.

A gun lovers utopia.

Didn't Spengler who shot firemen and off duty cop steal Bushmaster from his neighbor. Guns can actually make you a target for robbery or break ins especially if you have the good stuff.

I read that the LA gun buy back program yielded two RPG anti tank weapons. Haha, need that for deer hunting!

Four words:

Australian gun buyback programme

http://en.wikipedia....am#In_Australia

Buy back 300 MIILLION guns? Do the math, Samran.

And, what about those who don't want to sell? Got three more words for them?

It is a start and over time may be more effective than you realize.

http://latimesblogs....-buyback-1.html

"More than 575 guns had been collected by mid-day Wednesday in L.A.'s gun buyback, as people waited for up to two hours to turn over firearms -- no questions asked -- in exchange for gift cards.

While police say the bulk of the guns are "mom and pop guns" -- hunting rifles and shotguns -- the haul includes a handful of larger-scale weapons, including at least 15 assault rifles.

At the Van Nuys buyback station -- one of two in the city of Los Angeles -- one of the first guns to be collected was a Bushmaster rifle that was the same type used at this month's massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Other guns collected included semiautomatic handguns typically associated with gang violence and street crime."

And you are sure that the sellers of the 575 guns hadn't burgled them the night before, to make a bit of extra cash?

No clue. How would I or anyone know, but the net effect would be the same. Gun and assault rifles off the street.

There you go again quoting a 42% figure for a completely ambiguous question that is clearly inconsistent with the follow up more poignant questions. 62% said in favor of BAN on assault weapons. 62 % said in favor of BAN on large capacity clips. I think it was around 90% that was in favor of registration. 74% of NRA members were in favor in certain gun control measures that I also quoted to you.

News flash, the above are measures ARE gun control measures (partial bans, background checks on ALL purchases and registration) so you 42% number you keep tossing around is completely inconsistent with reality and unambiguous questions. You are even inconsistent with NRA polls . . .

And I already told you, your CBS poll is biased because it oversampled Democrats who are we know, are pro gun to the extreme!

Haha, you are a funny guy. Did you get access to the sample and discover their political affiliations? I guess the NRA poll is just more liberal deceit and brainwashing from those evil thugs that comprise or support the axis of evil GW warned us about.

In guys like gl555 we are dealing with believers!

They already made their mind up, there is no chance in heaven or hell, that they would ever even consider there is another way.

That is even worse than the NRA, who - I assume- are mostly in it for the money!

By the way: 700.000 US citizens petitioned for a deportation of Pirece Morgan, because his "attacks" on "gunners" may have been an "attack" on the US constitution.

As much as I believe the man is a c$%# and I have no sympathy for him at all: talking about "taking your freedom and your rights away, ey?! What about the "freedom of speech"? Hippie stuff! Surely not as important as the "right to own guns"!

>shaking my head in disbelieve<

There is a choice. And that choice is to totally ban guns in America. If the government has the will to do it and comes up with a comprehensive way to get rid of the 300 million guns out there then I'm all for it.

Until then, all these half measures gun control have been and will be failures. Criminals and crazies still have easy access to illegal guns. I'm not one of the 2nd Amendment extremists but I do believe if a criminal can get a gun easily thru illegal means then a citizen should be able to do the same legally to protect himself.

Why don't you accept the fact that 42% of the Americans polled are all for guns and against gun control? That's almost half of America. Just because they don't agree with you, you shake your head in disbelief? Get real.

So...okay...this is the first time, I hear you say "Total ban? okay!". That goes way further than I would go, because I believe, buy- back, stricter laws, stringent background- checks and EDUCATION would be enough to bring down gun- crimes and gun- accidents a lot.

But you are still with that "there are 300 Million guns out there, so...nothing will work"- point!

By that logic, why have laws on alcohol? Cigarettes? Drugs? They are even more "out there", but no one would agree that alcohol should be sold to 16 year olds! They will get it, if they want...so why prohibit that?

It just makes no sense to say "The problem is big...so don't touch it!"

The fact that 42% are totally pro- gun doesn't make them right, by the way!

In Chicago, where a couple of years back the Supreme Court quashed a 28 year old gun ban, had during the ban years, one of the highest handgun murder rate in the country. You would think banning guns would actually lower the firearm murder rate but no, studies show that violent crimes and firearm murders in Chicago actually INCREASED while the gun ban was in effect. A study this year shows crime rates DROPPING after the harsh gun ban was quashed. This kinda pokes hole in the theory that gun control works doesn't it?

So you see, whatever stricter gun laws you may want will never work because there are already too many guns out there.

And just because you think the 42% are wrong, doesn't mean they are. And it sure as hell doesn't mean you anti gun people are right.

There you go again quoting a 42% figure for a completely ambiguous question that is clearly inconsistent with the follow up more poignant questions. 62% said in favor of BAN on assault weapons. 62 % said in favor of BAN on large capacity clips. I think it was around 90% that was in favor of registration. 74% of NRA members were in favor in certain gun control measures that I also quoted to you.

News flash, the above are ARE gun control measures (partial bans, background checks on ALL purchases and registration) so your 42% number you keep tossing around is completely inconsistent with reality and unambiguous questions. You are even inconsistent with NRA polls . . .

I don't think anyone on here in mainstream America wants shotgun and bolt action hunting rifles banned. Registration would be very effective if done like class III as it would put dealers as well as individuals in jail for transferring weapons to felons, domestic abusers and etc. Mandatory jail sentence, even if short, for possessing unregistered firearm will eventually work quiet well also.

No perfect solution, but accountability is a positive, not a negative as you guys view it.

I'd like one of you who is against gun ownership to rationally articulate your plan on how to remove 300,000,000 guns from the hands of Americans.

Please, in a thousand words or less, tell us.

I see many people and organizations (the Economist most recently, advocating repealling the 2nd amendment) spouting off against guns, rabidly in many cases, but no one has set forth a plan on how to remove all those guns from private hands.

Anyone here volunteering to go door-to-door?

Four words:

Australian gun buyback programme

http://en.wikipedia....am#In_Australia

Buy back 300 MIILLION guns? Do the math, Samran.

And, what about those who don't want to sell? Got three more words for them?

It is a start and over time may be more effective than you realize.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/los-angeles-gun-buyback-1.html

"More than 575 guns had been collected by mid-day Wednesday in L.A.'s gun buyback, as people waited for up to two hours to turn over firearms -- no questions asked -- in exchange for gift cards.

While police say the bulk of the guns are "mom and pop guns" -- hunting rifles and shotguns -- the haul includes a handful of larger-scale weapons, including at least 15 assault rifles.

At the Van Nuys buyback station -- one of two in the city of Los Angeles -- one of the first guns to be collected was a Bushmaster rifle that was the same type used at this month's massacre at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.

Other guns collected included semiautomatic handguns typically associated with gang violence and street crime."

You have to look at the source of this "news". Not known for balanced reporting, just for whipping their main demographic into a frenzy. Trust me, it's not difficult either.

So true. Axis of evil. Thug terrorist. Bad guys wanting to hurt Americans. They want to take our guns away. Evil liberals. Democrats want bigger government and take away your guns and ability to defend yourself. Haha, amazing what people believe.

One of the reasons that the gov't is strict with support payments is that a lot of these children end up being supported by Welfare programs. They have no health insurance and end up covered under Medical Assistance programs. Very often this is only because of a vindictive parent.

Children who are on welfare, but who have parents who owe child support are pursued by the state, not the custodial parent.

I've known quite a few people who had court ordered child support payments. All of them were reasonable payments. The ones who get in trouble are the ones who get behind on those payments. Unlike a car, your children do not get repossessed if you don't make the payments.

Very true. Most child support obligations are extremely reasonable unless domestic or substance abuse history and father spends no time with child. If father spend minimum of 80 days or more a year with child, the support payments in US get much smaller.

I know from my experience that my child support payments were much less that what I actually spent on them while they were under my roof 24/7.

I for one will never visit India whilst this disgraceful treatment of women continues. We are all human beings and should be treated equally. Indian Authorities take note I hope and urge all potential tourists to boycott your country.

Probably not quite as bad as South Africa and some other African countries, maybe wish to add them to your list of no-go places.

That aside, what would staying away from India accomplish, exactly? Wouldn't it actually be better to spend time there, spreading better notions around? Authorities handling of these issues is only one aspect of the problem. Changing ideas, perceptions and so on is another. Quite a few ways to do this while being there either as tourist or on business.

Difficult to reason with the unreasonable and morally bankrupt. I am curious how a culture fosters a belief system that results in not one, but multiple grown males (men is too humanized) finding it acceptable or even desirable to rape, gang rape or molest ten year old children.

Well, it might influence any future thinking with these stupid hoax calls.

The Indian-born nurse was admitted to Mangalore hospital for a depressive disorder when she visited her family in December 2011, the unnamed relative said.

According to Indian media reports, the 46-year-old mother-of-two had tried to kill herself at the time and made a second attempt nine days later.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2012/12/23/15/28/radio-hoax-nurse-tried-to-commit-suicide-before

She was intent on killing herself it appears regrdless of whether the D.J's called or not. It may have been a co worker she would blamed for her own death if the D.J's had not called. She already had mental health problems.

Even absent this information, it was apparent she had problems. No reasonable person offs themself. Need to look at egg shell skull theory of common law. May not matter how many previous treatments she had. I am unsure if this common law theory would be applicable to criminal prosecution in England. May be inconsistent with a knew or should ave known mens rea.

Here's the thing: If more guns made us safer, the United States would already be the safest place on the face of the Earth, instead of being nearer the top of the list for firearms deaths per capita.

Unfortunately, reality, rationality and common sense are not at issue in a debate about guns.

Unfortunately, rationale people with more moderate views tend to be less likely to vote so our policy gets dictated by the whackadoodles.

And those same whackadoodles elect (or re-elect) our politicians...

Maybe we need a new amendment that keeps whackadoodles from voting. Can someone please come up with a whackadoodle test so that they are easy to identify.

Or... national requirement to vote... or ... anyone who voted in the previous election cannot vote in the next one so that at least every other election is not controlled by whackadoodles.

The "whackadoodle" test is reserved for the legal profession.

That's alright. We make great money and have a realitively easy life so call us whatever you want. I wouldn't chose any other profession.