Coreece

And, sometimes I feel conflicted arguing about the deaths of children by guns to a group that believes in abortion. They're just collateral damage, of no importance for just one impetuous moment of pleasure.

Agreed there, and I am glad there are people working on such programs and new legislation. Unfortunately, there are those who prefer "thoughts and prayers" to any effort to improve the situation. And there are those that think banning buns will work and/or repeatedly claim that we choose to do nothing but give thoughts and prayers, but as with most of those on the fringe, they are usually wrong and rather unreasonable people. Also, I don't really know anyone in this forum that prefers thoughts and prayers in lieu of any effort to improve the situation, but there are plenty of people like Kallend and Gowlerk that say we choose to do nothing while deliberately ignoring facts to the contrary - and it's sad people like that prefer trolling over any effort to spread awareness about proven prevention programs that in many communities are either underfunded or non-existent.

Well, that's how you gauge the problem, implement solutions and measure progress, but why let that get in the way of your trolling? Tho I'm sorry to hear that, it at least explains the disconnect in our previous conversations on the subject. Then by your gorilla math, Canada's gun problem is equal to the U.S gun problem simply because it exists.

No idea. Well, you were the one that said "over and over and over again and again and again," so I thought you'd at least have a clue.

Not sure how that makes things OK, but there are plenty of programs/legislation that are making things better. In the other thread you were even talking about some of the laws that were being enacted throughout various states.

I'm sure she had her own regret without my help. Possibly. Not sure how it happened, but if there was regret it was probably because complacency or something like that, rather than because of carrying the gun itself. How many people per year kill themselves accidentally with a gun?

Ya, too bad you weren't there to rub her face in it before she died. . .

FIFY

Hopefully we can agree that it takes more than that to sway you. Oh there's more? Does he do flips on the dismount?

Who's the guy that likes to stand on countertops and tell it like it is? Ya, not him. . .

Not really? It may be a cultural thing I’m not getting. That might be the disconnect right there. You don't get the violent culture nor the problem, which is why your arguments seem to be irrational appeals to emotion and your solutions impractical sci-fi fantasy. How are you going to get criminals (gang members, drug dealers, illegal gun dealers, etc.) to register their illegal guns and present to bureaucrats maps of their preferred shooting zones for approval to purchase some device that will render their guns useless? I'm sure they'll also have no problem with being turned over to the authorities if the bureaucrat finds their preferred shooting zones questionable. Also, felons aren't even allowed to have a gun, so why would they even bother going through this process and incriminate themselves? Same thing with the significant amount of killers under the age of 21 that typically aren't allowed to have a handgun in the first place? Again, about 75 of the 150 mass shootings didn't have any fatalities, leaving an average of 1 fatality per mass shooting, totaling 150 people nationwide. Meanwhile, 200+ people have already been shot and killed in Chicago alone, the majority of which were between the ages of 13-29. The most crime prone age group is 15-24, with the majority of known killers ranging in age from 13-29 "Homicide has been the leading cause of death for non-Hispanic Black youth for more than three decades." "While mass shootings regularly grab the attention of the national media, they account for only a sliver of total gun deaths in the United States. The 68 people killed in mass shootings this year make up a fraction of a percent of the 12,509 people killed by guns in 2018." So given that you obviously don't understand the culture/problem, it's no wonder your priorities on the issue are all screwed up. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever to waste the resources on the development, manufacture and oversight of retrofitting 400 million guns just to eliminate some "low hanging fruit." If it's that hard, then it's not "low hanging." Better to spend that amount of effort/money on attacking the root of the problem with programs and laws that have already been proven to reduce crime over the last 25 years and continues to do so. The whole thing about not doing anything but giving "thoughts and prayers" is just another lame strawman. See, you really don't understand the problem and why these kids are joining gangs in the first place and apparently don't even care. Besides gangs are just part of the problem of inner city gun violence and mass shootings. One thing you're failing to recognize is that these proven violence prevention programs not only address gun violence, but all violence. The idea is that if we can educate and provide families with the necessary resources before kids reach the crime prone age group of 15-24, then we significantly reduce the chances of them engaging in violence later on in life. Again: "While mass shootings regularly grab the attention of the national media, they account for only a sliver of total gun deaths in the United States. The 68 people killed in mass shootings this year make up a fraction of a percent of the 12,509 people killed by guns in 2018." So given that, it appears you are the one using a fringe case to ignore reality and propose ineffective solutions that borderline science-fiction. You said that like 3 or 4 times already yet here you are, again. You act like you're the only one that has posted anything reasonable on the subject that people just ignored. You could've had a nice discussion with wolfriverjoe, but you completely ignored his post and any questions therein, and you'll probably ignore the questions about criminals willingly registering and retrofitting millions of illegal guns. The fact that this seems like such a good idea to you absolutely blows my fucking mind. Either you haven't thought this through or have a very limited understanding of the problem. That's typically what happens when you post weak arguments and then threaten to run away because they can't stand up to even the slightest bit of ridicule. How is that any different form what you're doing? (or not doing)

Given that most of California was on water rationing - and given that there are 40 million people in California. . .  Well there's the problem, given that 40 million people living around the desert are demanding fresh water, most of California was on water rationing. Edit - and to tie this back to mass shootings, we don't have water shortages here in the Great Lakes unless you live in Flint where the Republicans were feeding lead into the water supply till the citizens went crazy and started killing each other. Part of the decline in crime over the past 30 years has been attributed to the reduced exposure to lead.

Good idea. That way when a Crip shows his circle of preference, the human bureaucrats can deny any areas not within his gang's territory, thus saving hundreds of innocent new Bloods. (Sorry, I couldn't help myself, but you see where I'm going with this, right?)

Right, that was kind of the reason for my post because democrats often champion themselves as the purveyor of civil rights and use that to garner black votes yet are apparently unbeholden to black voters and held unaccountable for policies that have had a detrimental effect on that community and the inner city in general. Most democrat politicians have acknowledged this and learned from their mistakes, which may have been one of the reasons why they seemed reluctant to pass gun control legislation when they had the chance. It just seems to me that democrats have almost given up on the black community and are just going through the motions and keeping up appearances while focusing their efforts on the LGBT and Hispanic communities. It's almost like they believe the lie that the issues plaguing blacks are just the result of the natural forces of capitalism at work. The only thing I know about Candace Owen is what's been posted in this forum, so not much.

They call it Chiraq to make a clear distinction between the poverty stricken gun-plagued black neighborhoods of chicago and and the safe rich white people neighborhoods with hi-rise condos and gated communities - and then they have the balls to say, "see, chicago isn't THAT bad!" I think the top 10 gun-plagued cities in the U.S are all run by democrats that have done virtually nothing over the past 60+ years to address de facto segregation in the north along the with a variety of other issues plaguing black communities that have actually been exacerbated by democrat policies that have been royally fucking over minorities for the past 25+ years. Way to fight the power guys!

Oh please, if you have a name associated with notoriety, people are going to point it out. Sometimes it could be racist, other times not so much.

Ya, because if it was "Donald Hitler Trump" the left would just let that slide, right? I think you'd have a better point if it was "Barack Achmed Obama" or some other name that wasn't so notorious.

Didn't you do this whole tail/leg thing awhile back with the definition of marriage? Look how that turned out.

It turns out that the Georgia law actually does have a provision for not only child support, but tax deductions for unborn children as well.

What's apparent is that this new law introduces a bunch of uncertainties that will ultimately have to be hashed out in the courts. I will say however that Hillman v. State decided that the current older law "does not criminalize a pregnant woman's actions in securing an abortion, regardless of the means utilized," so unless explicitly stated otherwise, it would seem that this decision would take precedence.

Like what? I wouldn't just accept ANY change just for the sake doing something and/or sticking it to the conservatives. Unless you're talking about an outright ban/confiscation, then I don't really see any change that would limit my rights anymore than I already do myself, but that doesn't mean I should impose that standard on everyone else.

More likely they are just so frequent they're not really news any more. There was another one a few days before; there will likely be another one next week. Shootings like the last one in Virginia Beach don't happen as often as that. Someone earlier in the thread mentioned that there were 150 mass shootings so far this year, but about half of those didn't have any fatalities - and that's why you don't hear about them in the news.

Does it explicitly state that? I'm still under the impression that the language is silent on the issue, which might be leading some people to believe that women can be indirectly charged with conspiracy or something.

Congratulations, you win!

Just like the rest of the gospel "truth" nonsense.  "just because you believe in evidence-based, scientific research – which is subject to strict checks and procedures – doesn't mean that your mind works in the same way." "The problem that any rational thinker needs to tackle, though, is that the science increasingly shows that atheists are no more rational than theists. Indeed, atheists are just as susceptible as the next person to "group-think" and other non-rational forms of cognition. For example, religious and nonreligious people alike can end up following charismatic individuals without questioning them." " Clearly, the idea that being atheist is down to rationality alone is starting to look distinctly irrational. But the good news for all concerned is that rationality is overrated. Human ingenuity rests on a lot more than rational thinking. . . The truth is that humans are not like science – none of us get by without irrational action, nor without sources of existential meaning and comfort. Fortunately, though, nobody has to." https://phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.html