NM11046

So gender matters as far as opinions on abortion but it doesn't matter when selecting a restroom? ;-) Just playin. Word of warning, be careful of pronoun use when referring to teachercd. Seriously though, there's you, Moiraine, roxy, and girlknowsfootball and I think that about covers it for the frequent female posters. I'm sure there are more but you and Moiraine are usually the only ones who will brave the politics & religion forum. I'm sure I've forgotten 1 or 3 others....Cina? "Whether most of us commenting here are men or not is kind of irrelevant. We still have a vote, so we still get to help contribute to the decision." Now now, I said nothing about men or women having more or less opinion or relevance on this topic - I was just curious. Yes, everyone has a vote or opinion, it just impacts a few of us more directly and I always find it interesting how opinions break. Just like I find it interesting that there aren't more females commenting on our current recruiting class. Nothing more.

Tried my darnedest to find a way to do a poll here ... I'd be curious as to the sex of those who are commenting on this thread. I went through the first page, and of 13 commenters there were, 10 men, 2 who were "not disclosed" and 1 female (me).

+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1

No baby is "viable" outside the womb. Take a baby at birth and leave it alone in the wild. It isn't going to survive, not without outside intervention. The "viability" argument makes zero sense to me. So perhaps "viable" is too loose a term for you. But breathing on it's own, body functions without assistance from machines or extra measures. Obviously basic care from a parent or caregiver is needed for any infant. As a generality, any fetus needs lung development to be considered "viable". I think the very earliest this has happened is about 21 weeks. A developing fetus that isn't "viable" is not the same thing as a person whose organs are shutting down and has a Do-Not-Resuscitate order. Even though the baby isn't developed yet, that doesn't make it not a baby. Help me out with the DNR reference Shark ... not seeing how this got into the convo ....

No baby is "viable" outside the womb. Take a baby at birth and leave it alone in the wild. It isn't going to survive, not without outside intervention. The "viability" argument makes zero sense to me. So perhaps "viable" is too loose a term for you. But breathing on it's own, body functions without assistance from machines or extra measures. Obviously basic care from a parent or caregiver is needed for any infant. As a generality, any fetus needs lung development to be considered "viable". I think the very earliest this has happened is about 21 weeks.

Wait for it ...

In my opinion, it's a baby when it would be viable outside the womb. Approx week 26+.

I can't hardly hold in my excitement to hear how it's moral to murder unborn babies. When do you consider them "unborn babies?" Conception or a certain amount of weeks? Fixed this for you. At the time of conception, it is a baby in my opinion. In other words, once the sperm fertilizes the egg.

Kid should just get an apartment here now ...

THANK YOU ZOOGS.

So you're saying that less guns and changing the culture would be successful deterrents towards the rates of gun violence? I think he's saying that lots of nice beaches and palm trees are useful deterrents to committing crimes (I would think). Nope. :-) Florida: 24.5% gun ownership ... 3.4 gun murders per 100,000. The difference is gun laws. Florida: Only Requires a three-day waiting period prior to purchase of a handgun; Prohibits the transfer or possession of certain types of ammunition Florida does not, however: Require a background check prior to the transfer of a firearm Require firearms dealers to obtain a state license; License firearm owners; Require the registration of guns Regulate assault weapons, 50 caliber rifles or large capacity ammo magazines Limit the number of guns that may be purchased at one time; or Regulate "Saturday Night Specials" or other junk guns

That's not the sole intent of what I said or suggested, but thanks for the red herring, fallacious reasoning and mischaracterization anyway. But you still proved my point; there are relatively fewer guns in Hawaii to begin with, and their culture may cause them to not grip them so tightly. Hard for me to understand your intent when you make such broad statements and back it up with nothing but unsubstantiated information. If what it is is your opinion or your gut instinct then it's fine to say that. You'd get more respect. Forgive me if it was said many pages back, but what are your suggestions? All you've done the last page or so is pick apart others thoughts.

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere. I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well). I never suggested Hawaii was devoid of poverty, violence, crime, etc. How popular are guns in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures? I can't speak to popularity in those countries. How popular/prevalent are guns and gun ownership rights in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures compared to mainland USA? More or less? Take a guess. Those cultures have had a greater influence on Hawaii for a much longer period of time than USA's influence has had. I think that's a broad assumption - what I can point to as fact is: There were a total of 420,409 firearms were registered in Hawaii from 2000 to 2014. This is on top of the 1 million firearms that were already in the state (data is from the Hawaii Attorney General’s office and the Honolulu Police Department) That means there could be more guns in Hawaii than residents, according to data from the Attorney General’s office., or at least approx 1 firearm per state resident. What they do different is regulate them: Before purchase one must obtain a permit from county chief of police. You must be 21 years old and a U.S. citizen. You must be fingerprinted and photographed for a criminal background check and affirm by affidavit your mental health and lack of drug or alcohol addiction or criminal background. You authorize release of your medical history and give the name and address of your doctor (if any). Your doctor is required to release any mental health information pertinent to your acquiring firearms. A drunk driving record, history of serious psychiatric diagnosis, or any treatment for alcohol or drug abuse will result in denial of your permit. A letter from a physician will be required to establish that you are “no longer adversely affected”. You will wait 14 days to get your permit. The new law requires an investigation anytime a registered owner is arrested for any cause. (there is a database up to date showing all current owners) There are tight restrictions on what kind of weapons are legal (i.e. Full auto (machine gun) firearms are not permitted in Hawaii (since statehood) except for military and law enforcement. Assault pistols (essentially large semi auto pistols of cosmetic paramilitary appearance, usually accepting detachable magazines of over 10 rounds capacity), are banned. Hawaii state law prohibits greater than 10 round detachable pistol magazines (including rifle magazines capable of use in any pistol, such as the AR-15/M16, AK, M1 carbine, H&K carbine, Thompson, and aftermarket Ruger .22 magazines) Sawed off shotguns/rifles, stun guns, silencers, etc are all illegal. ​For sure, gun ownership is less prevalent in Hawaii 6.7% vs. Illinois 20.2%. Murders by gun are also less in HI (.5% vs 2.8% in IL). Is this because of their "cultural heritage" or the laws? If you think longevity of stateship or cultural background from hundreds of years ago is a factor, then one would think that Massachusetts, NY, RI would all be high, because they've been states the longest and were created by folks who were gun toting advocates during the Revolution right? Respective ownership numbers are: 12.6%, 18%, 12.8% and murders per 100,000 are low, 1.8% (MA), 2.7% (NY), 1.5% (RI). Instead your leaders in gun deaths are the the states (ironically) with the high gun ownership: LA-44% MO-41%, MD-21% with death by gun at LA - 7.7% MO-5.4% MD-5.1%. Numbers don't lie. More guns = more gun deaths. And I don't think you can point toward founding father culture as much as you can point to local laws that impact the figures. I'd have to do a little more research, but I'm predicting that states with tougher laws for guns include MA, NY and RI and that more lax laws exist in LA, MO and MD.

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere. I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well). I never suggested Hawaii was devoid of poverty, violence, crime, etc. How popular are guns in Polynesian, Japanese, Malaysian, Asian, etc. cultures? I can't speak to popularity in those countries.

I was thinking the same thing; their situation is a little unique when compared to mainland USA. Their geography is different, and their culture is different -- they've only been a state for little more than 50 years. What works there won't necessarily work anywhere. I will agree with you that carrying guns across state lines is tougher for sure - but how does their years of statehood matter? Culture? There is ample amount of poverty, drug use, domestic violence and etc there as well as gangs and organized crime (and according to some it's violence on tv, which they do get there as well).

nope. We have had a few ideas thrown out but pretty quickly stomped on.

Like, that's not even remotely true. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt 30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded. This is a bit dated because (as we've covered previously) the CDC now is no longer able to compile information on gun deaths, but in a study done looking at hospital admissions, ER, police reports and medical examiners and published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care in 1998: 628 shootings in 6 cities over the course of 12-18 months Only 13 were in self-defense or legally justifiable (including three shootings by law enforcement officers on duty) 54 shootings were unintentional 118 were attempted or completed suicides 438 were assaults or homicides In this non biased, scientific review for every 1 time a gun was used for self-defense there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or murders and 11 suicides or suicide attempts. So perhaps your home is highly susceptible for invasion (I agree with Landlord on this one however), even so the likelihood of that gun in your bedside table or the one locked up in the safe actually being used for something other than protecting yourself is quite high. To boot you know how you want to "protect my family"? The numbers also show that those most often impacted by those murders, accidents, suicides etc are women and children. The issue with that data is that it doesn't include that many times, the intruder survives. The goal isn't to kill the intruder, it's to stop them. And there's the issue where the homeowner being armed and producing a firearm scares off the intruder. It does include all shootings, survival or not. I'll have to dig into the data a bit more, It may not include if a gun scared someone without being fired (they would have to have filed a police report at a min or gone to the hospital). How often has that happened to you?

Probably, yes. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates? I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement. Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring. Suicide trial published in the American Journal of Epidemiology - Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home. http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Like, that's not even remotely true. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/vdhb.txt 30 seconds of google searching shows that you're much more likely to have your home invaded. This is a bit dated because (as we've covered previously) the CDC now is no longer able to compile information on gun deaths, but in a study done looking at hospital admissions, ER, police reports and medical examiners and published in The Journal of Trauma, Injury, Infection and Critical Care in 1998: 628 shootings in 6 cities over the course of 12-18 months Only 13 were in self-defense or legally justifiable (including three shootings by law enforcement officers on duty) 54 shootings were unintentional 118 were attempted or completed suicides 438 were assaults or homicides In this non biased, scientific review for every 1 time a gun was used for self-defense there were 4 unintentional shootings, 7 criminal assaults or murders and 11 suicides or suicide attempts. So perhaps your home is highly susceptible for invasion (I agree with Landlord on this one however), even so the likelihood of that gun in your bedside table or the one locked up in the safe actually being used for something other than protecting yourself is quite high. To boot you know how you want to "protect my family"? The numbers also show that those most often impacted by those murders, accidents, suicides etc are women and children.

At least somebody is doing something ... one of the states with the least amount of gun deaths, tightest legislation and they still felt it was time to do more. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0626/Hawaii-steps-into-gun-control-fray-joining-state-by-state-approach

What is wrong with us? Alligator attacks have resulted in 19 deaths in the US since 2000 Lane Graves dies in June 2016 and the world flips out, blames that parents, blames Disney, Disney changes signage, Disney puts up fences and Disney prepares for a law suit. Gun deaths (does not include suicides) in the US ~6000 from January-June 2016 Majority of US citizens demand change. Some citizens bear down and claim it's what our founding fathers would have wanted - that when they wrote the constitution they were taking into account the high capacity weapons and mass murders that would one day be the norm. Gun manufacturers and gun related companies sink more money into the NRA and other lobbyist groups. NRA reminds their whores in public office to ignore their responsibility to represent their constituents. Zero movement is made, or even really attempted to take care of this national epidemic. And tomorrow is a new day. It makes me sick.

Probably, yes. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates? I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement. Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring. I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it. Ugh. That is such an overused melodramatic excuse/reason. Such tunnel-vision can be used to justify almost anything if you conveniently choose to omit/ignore all other conceivable circumstances, consequences or impracticalities. Thank you. Think what you may, but if your family was victim, your friend was killed in an accident - whatever, you'd think this to be the case. And if that melodramatic tunnel vision statement isn't correct, what exactly is the number? Is it 100 people? 1000?

Probably, yes. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates? I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement. Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring. I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it. Ugh. That is such an overused melodramatic excuse/reason. Such tunnel-vision can be used to justify almost anything if you conveniently choose to omit/ignore all other conceivable circumstances, consequences or impracticalities. Thank you. Think what you may, but if your family was victim, your friend was killed in an accident - whatever, you'd think this to be the case.

I dont' disagree with you CM - all the gun suicides I know have been with a legally purchased gun, most however have been purchased by someone else and used however and I don't know how we could monitor or secure that from happening. I am not opposed to prohibition, but I understand that there are sportsman who will freak at this ... what are your thoughts on limiting the types of guns made available, or limiting the number of guns a person can own? If every 4 years just like your drivers license you have to "renew" your ownership? I seriously don't understand why anyone other than a policeman needs anything other than a rifle or shotgun. Admittedly I have very little experience with guns of late, but help me understand why a hunter needs a hand gun? Or a high powered multi round gun? I guess I don't understand why "soft" prohibition isn't an option. Like others here have more eloquently expressed earlier, I just struggle with the idea that we shouldn't do anything, because we anticipate that it won't work. Nothing will be 100%, but then you tweak and make adjustments. We've got to try.

Probably, yes. 2/3 of gun deaths are suicide. It's unfortunate, but do we sacrifice what a lot of people enjoy in a completely legal manner in order to possibly reduce suicide and gang murder rates? I'm open to the debate, because I don't consider gun ownership a sacred right, but I haven't seen many logical (cost benefit based) arguments convincing enough to go through the trouble of new law enforcement. Emotionally, I hate mass shootings and any death or injury to an innocent person, but like so many red button topics in this country, gun control is really a red herring. I say anything we can do to save one life, be it suicide, mass shooting, child finding a weapon in dads' room, gang violence is worth it.