Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, October 9, 2009
News The Stupidity of Guns
Posted by Charles Mudede on Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 6:52 AM
Remember the gun-toting soccer mom? I wonder how she met her end:
(CNN) — Soccer mom Melanie Hain, who made national headlines last year by having a loaded, holstered handgun at her 5-year-old daughter's soccer game, has been found shot dead in her home along with her husband, police said Thursday.We all know this will turn out to be a murder-suicide. In the end, self-defense? No. In the end, a broken heart? Yes.Melanie Hain was found shot dead in her home along with her husband Thursday.
Information from 911 calls shows that it took a SWAT team nearly an hour and a half to gain entry to the Lebanon, Pennsylvania, home Wednesday evening. Inside, they found the bodies of Hain, 31, and her husband, Scott, 33, police Capt. Daniel Wright said.
Police have avoided labeling the incident a murder-suicide. However, they do not believe that another person was involved, Wright said. A full investigation is under way, he added.
According to Melanie Hain's attorney, Matthew B. Weisberg, she informed him a few months ago that she and her husband were separating. However, it is not presently apparent if they were still living together at the time of their deaths.
3
Well, #1 looks like #2 took care of that for you.
BTW, since she's dead does anyone know what the result of this will be?
"Hain in turn sued the sheriff for $1 million."
BTW, since she's dead does anyone know what the result of this will be?
"Hain in turn sued the sheriff for $1 million."
4
Good post, Charles. (little typo: I wonder how SHE met her end, not "see," right? Thought you might want to fix it.)
5
Yeah, you've got to hate those stupid guns. Why, if they hadn't jumped up and started shooting people, I'm sure these folks would be just fine.
8
Why are you taking Glee in a tragedy? A little girl has lost her mother and father. Dont try and turn this into a gun debate, if it was a murder suicide would it have been better if he drove their car into oncoming traffic? Or if he stabbed her to death? Or strangled her? He wanted to kill her, and he wanted to die, theres nothing that could have stopped him.
9
"Don't try to turn this into a gun debate"!
Hilarious. What on Earth does this story have to do with guns?
Hilarious. What on Earth does this story have to do with guns?
10
absent guns, he would have had to stab her or bludgeon her, then do the same to himself. possible, but less likely in the presence of the kids.
guns don't cause violence. guns make violence easier and more deadly.
i think the militia the husband belongs to needs better regulation.
guns don't cause violence. guns make violence easier and more deadly.
i think the militia the husband belongs to needs better regulation.
11
The Stupidity of Chuck Mudede.
You never cease to confirm that Chuck.
It is a wonder to me that the Stranger continues to employ you during this time economic downturn. Either you suck a mean dick, have extortion evidence against Dan, or you are being paid to be pot stirring shill?
Sorry Chuck you are not allowed an opinion on guns. Period. You have no valid perspective for understanding American culture relating to guns, having not been raised here. Only native born Americans can have a full opportunity at understanding why the vast majority of Americans strongly feel a right to keep and bear arms to protect life and property.
It is not the responsibility of the police to protect you. In fact if you are depending on them to arrive in a timely fashion to save you from a violent crime, you will learn a fatal lesson. Violence only takes a matter of minutes, and by the time police arrive to take a report, violence upon you will be finished.
In regards to this piece of trash post, your attempts at drawing any correlations between inanimate pieces of steel with one individuals actions and then casting a wide assumption or drawing a holistic inference shows your complete lack of intellect in practical logic.
Keep trying Chuck.
While you still are employed.
You never cease to confirm that Chuck.
It is a wonder to me that the Stranger continues to employ you during this time economic downturn. Either you suck a mean dick, have extortion evidence against Dan, or you are being paid to be pot stirring shill?
Sorry Chuck you are not allowed an opinion on guns. Period. You have no valid perspective for understanding American culture relating to guns, having not been raised here. Only native born Americans can have a full opportunity at understanding why the vast majority of Americans strongly feel a right to keep and bear arms to protect life and property.
It is not the responsibility of the police to protect you. In fact if you are depending on them to arrive in a timely fashion to save you from a violent crime, you will learn a fatal lesson. Violence only takes a matter of minutes, and by the time police arrive to take a report, violence upon you will be finished.
In regards to this piece of trash post, your attempts at drawing any correlations between inanimate pieces of steel with one individuals actions and then casting a wide assumption or drawing a holistic inference shows your complete lack of intellect in practical logic.
Keep trying Chuck.
While you still are employed.
12
@11: Reality Wreck, you're funny.
Why is god so cruel to you that a man like Charles Mudede, with his pathetic resume of a couple of critically acclaimed films that got a turn at film festivals, books on the humanities and critical thought, and his position as a lecturer, could ever possibly retain a position here at The Stranger as a wordy intellectual? Why?
I don't think it's fair that anyone who disagrees with you is so gainfully employed. I think you should type out a spittle-drenched diatribe implying your own superiority. Throw in a little self-indulgent xenophobia too for good measure.
That'll learn'im!
Why is god so cruel to you that a man like Charles Mudede, with his pathetic resume of a couple of critically acclaimed films that got a turn at film festivals, books on the humanities and critical thought, and his position as a lecturer, could ever possibly retain a position here at The Stranger as a wordy intellectual? Why?
I don't think it's fair that anyone who disagrees with you is so gainfully employed. I think you should type out a spittle-drenched diatribe implying your own superiority. Throw in a little self-indulgent xenophobia too for good measure.
That'll learn'im!
13
RC, way to be a wingnut.
Tragically, this is how guns in the home frequently are used. Not for defense.
Tragically, this is how guns in the home frequently are used. Not for defense.
14
@11--leaving the gun arguemnt aside, it is ironic that you accuse charles of "lacking intellect in practical logic" when the first two paragraphs of your post is essentially an extended ad hominem attack--which is itself a logical fallacy.
15
They had actually three kids and it is believed that the father shot the mother and then turned the gun on himself...in front of those kids. The neighbors stated they'd been having marital problems since the husband lost his job. That gun of hers didn't work out to well for self defense....of course she carried it because she was fearful of terrorist attack by Muslims, not in fear of her husband. I believe what Charles is saying is that right before her husband blew her head off her shoulders, she probably had a moment of introspection where she thought, "Damn, having guns in the home actually didn't make my family safer!".
p.s. The woman was a nut. (And her husband was depressed to the point of suicide) I don't think nut jobs should be allowed to own guns. Sorry, folks, but I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't mean for the 2nd Amendment to allow crazy people and criminals access to guns.
p.s. The woman was a nut. (And her husband was depressed to the point of suicide) I don't think nut jobs should be allowed to own guns. Sorry, folks, but I'm pretty sure the founding fathers didn't mean for the 2nd Amendment to allow crazy people and criminals access to guns.
16
@12 Look who decides to reply... none other than the Stranger's resident kiss ass! Hi Baconkitten nice to see the excellent attempt at a reply. You really are cute too. So because Chuck has some "critically acclaimed" films we should all bow down? hahahahahahahahaa
pathetic. If that is how low our standards have become... oh wait... you are right... they have sunk that low. my bad. I'll worship at his altar from now on!
Now if only you were smart enough to actually type up a response of your own that didn't contain talking points rhetoric of the subject du jour, we'd actually have an interesting butting of heads.
Sadly though you continue showing your true merit with the non stop attacks against anyone who dare disagree with a Stranger staffer. Maybe if you didn't have your nose so far up the Stranger's ass you'd be able to discern that not everything they post is logical.
But first you need to wipe that shit stain off your hair lip.
You have an excellent Friday yourself.
pathetic. If that is how low our standards have become... oh wait... you are right... they have sunk that low. my bad. I'll worship at his altar from now on!
Now if only you were smart enough to actually type up a response of your own that didn't contain talking points rhetoric of the subject du jour, we'd actually have an interesting butting of heads.
Sadly though you continue showing your true merit with the non stop attacks against anyone who dare disagree with a Stranger staffer. Maybe if you didn't have your nose so far up the Stranger's ass you'd be able to discern that not everything they post is logical.
But first you need to wipe that shit stain off your hair lip.
You have an excellent Friday yourself.
17
the "vast majority of americans" also wanted to invade iraq. now they seem to have changed their minds once they got to live with the consequences for a while.
with guns, we don't even get to debate the facts, or reasonable adjustments to the laws, because absolutists like the NRA bar the door.
with guns, we don't even get to debate the facts, or reasonable adjustments to the laws, because absolutists like the NRA bar the door.
19
Matt @13 That is completely incorrect. Everytime that logic is touted it is refuted due to insufficient statistics that fail to document unreported uses of weapons to deter criminals, crimes, violence.
If you actually could determine a way to learn how many crimes are not committed by avoidance of a confrontation, robbery, assault etc... you'd learn that the mere presence or assumption of a presence of firearms keeps many crimes from occurring.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that I have family and friends back home, whom all... yes 100% have weapons in the home. None. Zero. Zilch have had any crimes committed against them, NONE of them have had any accidents with firearms, NONE of them have ever had family violence committed with firearms, .... and all of this anecdotal knowledge is over a 20 year period. Multiply that by number of days, number of people, and number of opportunities to employ weapons against any of them, and you begin to understand that weapons in a home are no more likely to jump up and shoot some one in stable law abiding homes.
Then take a moment to consider how many guns are floating around the US legally in homes across the country? The answer is around 250-300 million! And yet we all get into histrionics over the news of one particular domestic assault? It is pathetic how flippantly anti-gun whackjobs throw around meaningless stats that don't take the full picture into account.
Wingnut? Nope sorry. Gun owning? Abso fucking lutely.
You might want to put down the Kool Aid and consider the big picture Matt.
If you actually could determine a way to learn how many crimes are not committed by avoidance of a confrontation, robbery, assault etc... you'd learn that the mere presence or assumption of a presence of firearms keeps many crimes from occurring.
Anecdotally, I can tell you that I have family and friends back home, whom all... yes 100% have weapons in the home. None. Zero. Zilch have had any crimes committed against them, NONE of them have had any accidents with firearms, NONE of them have ever had family violence committed with firearms, .... and all of this anecdotal knowledge is over a 20 year period. Multiply that by number of days, number of people, and number of opportunities to employ weapons against any of them, and you begin to understand that weapons in a home are no more likely to jump up and shoot some one in stable law abiding homes.
Then take a moment to consider how many guns are floating around the US legally in homes across the country? The answer is around 250-300 million! And yet we all get into histrionics over the news of one particular domestic assault? It is pathetic how flippantly anti-gun whackjobs throw around meaningless stats that don't take the full picture into account.
Wingnut? Nope sorry. Gun owning? Abso fucking lutely.
You might want to put down the Kool Aid and consider the big picture Matt.
21
@16: I do it because you're predictable and easily bullied into performing on cue.
You can plop out all the catty little nothings you want, but you're still doing exactly what I want you to do.
And you'll keep on doing it until I decide to stop.
You can plop out all the catty little nothings you want, but you're still doing exactly what I want you to do.
And you'll keep on doing it until I decide to stop.
22
@17 Max
The door is barred because of the stated intent of those looking to kick it completely down.
If you the Brady Gun Control machine, MAIG, Handgun Control Inc, etc.. all have a legally signed document that they would abolish themselves once the door was opened a crack, and allow certain limited modifications to gun laws, and that was completely it forever, you might see some productive common sense allowance for change.
However as has been shown time and time again.... any "progress" the gun control nuts make, only emboldens them to try to push harder for further restrictions. They are never satisfied with small changes. They want complete abolishment of all guns. They have publically stated they will not stop or cease until the 2nd Amendment is completely repealed.
If you want to point a finger Max, start pointing at the Brady team's Handgun Control for their radical agenda. Maybe if they weren't so out of touch with the majority American opinion on the 2nd Amendment, the NRA might be willing to work on common sense laws. Unfortunately they'd rather work to demonize gun owners with liberals, keeping the chasm deep and wide, so that any meaningful cooperation is unlikely.
The door is barred because of the stated intent of those looking to kick it completely down.
If you the Brady Gun Control machine, MAIG, Handgun Control Inc, etc.. all have a legally signed document that they would abolish themselves once the door was opened a crack, and allow certain limited modifications to gun laws, and that was completely it forever, you might see some productive common sense allowance for change.
However as has been shown time and time again.... any "progress" the gun control nuts make, only emboldens them to try to push harder for further restrictions. They are never satisfied with small changes. They want complete abolishment of all guns. They have publically stated they will not stop or cease until the 2nd Amendment is completely repealed.
If you want to point a finger Max, start pointing at the Brady team's Handgun Control for their radical agenda. Maybe if they weren't so out of touch with the majority American opinion on the 2nd Amendment, the NRA might be willing to work on common sense laws. Unfortunately they'd rather work to demonize gun owners with liberals, keeping the chasm deep and wide, so that any meaningful cooperation is unlikely.
23
@16: you need to surrender to the charm that is the corgi, RC.
And your Web-enabled, unhinged diatribes are no more compelling than Baconcat's sometimes obvious sycophancy.
I'm not sold that he doesn't actually work for the publication. Many of them are crazy for bacon, after all.
And your Web-enabled, unhinged diatribes are no more compelling than Baconcat's sometimes obvious sycophancy.
I'm not sold that he doesn't actually work for the publication. Many of them are crazy for bacon, after all.
24
@23: I don't, but if I did, I'd be the one answering their hate mail.
It's all so delightful to me.
It's all so delightful to me.
27
@25: I heard they have a daily "hour of sorrow" to bawl their eyes out over the cruel things people say via e-mail or comments.
You people should be ashamed, you're making Lindy West cry!
You people should be ashamed, you're making Lindy West cry!
28
the constitution can be changed.
in particular, the current court definition of a "well-regulated militia" is overly broad and needs to be re-examined. "any male over 18"? how 19th century. of course, putting it before a roberts court is pointless.
but fuck, why am i arguing the "camel's nose in the tent" argument? i'm not even in favor of "banning guns". i just don't want testosterone-crazed mental patients to have them. when my brother in law went manic, the 1st thing we did was go get his rifles. luckily we got there in time and my sister and nieces are still alive.
in particular, the current court definition of a "well-regulated militia" is overly broad and needs to be re-examined. "any male over 18"? how 19th century. of course, putting it before a roberts court is pointless.
but fuck, why am i arguing the "camel's nose in the tent" argument? i'm not even in favor of "banning guns". i just don't want testosterone-crazed mental patients to have them. when my brother in law went manic, the 1st thing we did was go get his rifles. luckily we got there in time and my sister and nieces are still alive.
29
@27: That really is awful...poor sweet girl. I'm told her wails can be heard all the way down at the Value Village.
30
@28: How, reliably and consistently, do you allow for permutations like your brother's and still afford a broad freedom to a people? I don't have the answer...so I err on the side of affording the freedom, with the understanding that there will be no perfection; some soccer moms will be shot, some brothers' families will be saved. That's how things roll, in my experience.
31
@29: And nobody there knows to go help the staff, since Value Village is for hipsters, and hipsters don't have real feelings. Only fake feelings that they learned from their Bjorks and their Throw Me The Statues and anything Diablo Cody has ever written.
32
Just remember the object lesson - guns don't make you safer, and they're frequently used against you.
33
Yes, Max, the constitution can be changed. That's not in issue. Is it likely to ever be changed? That's another question entirely.
You can blame "the Roberts court" all you want, but the simple fact is that anyone who really takes the time to study the original intent of the framers would arrive at the same conclusion.
And mental illness - ah, there's a sticky wicket. That's not exactly a hard science, you know. We all agree crazy people shouldn't ave guns, but who determines "crazy?" On what basis? For what period of time? Are returning vets "crazy?" (Some would say "absolutely," but do you want to be the one to take away their guns?) Lots of thorny issues there.
You can blame "the Roberts court" all you want, but the simple fact is that anyone who really takes the time to study the original intent of the framers would arrive at the same conclusion.
And mental illness - ah, there's a sticky wicket. That's not exactly a hard science, you know. We all agree crazy people shouldn't ave guns, but who determines "crazy?" On what basis? For what period of time? Are returning vets "crazy?" (Some would say "absolutely," but do you want to be the one to take away their guns?) Lots of thorny issues there.
35
@34: then anyone who ever handed YOU so much as a BB has blood on their hands, WIS.
@31: VV is like a hipster Bergdorf's. And while all your reasons are accurate for their inability to manifest human feelings, the real reason is because, secretly, their lip piercing has immobilized them with self-loathing.
@31: VV is like a hipster Bergdorf's. And while all your reasons are accurate for their inability to manifest human feelings, the real reason is because, secretly, their lip piercing has immobilized them with self-loathing.
37
@35: I need a lip piercing to be a hipster? Dang it.
That's unfair in ways I can't articulate! Well, that, and the fact that my mouth is numb from my cruelty-free net zero energy usage vegan enchirito. I think it was a little rancid.
That's unfair in ways I can't articulate! Well, that, and the fact that my mouth is numb from my cruelty-free net zero energy usage vegan enchirito. I think it was a little rancid.
38
@36: Nope, I rather enjoy it. It gives me purpose and a zen-like sense of fulfillment.
Om padme, pat me bum, om padme, pat me bum.
Om padme, pat me bum, om padme, pat me bum.
39
The "debate" over guns is even more polarizing and emotional in our country than abortion or gays (as can be attested right here in these blog posts). One has to wonder why. On one side of the debate we have the "protectionists" who claim (correctly) that the intention behind the 2nd amendment is to allow local populations to protect themselves from "enemies." On the other side of the debate we have the "common gooders" who claim (also correctly) that the constitution and bill of rights as a whole seek to create a system that ensures the common good and protection of all. The ultimate point of the debate is whether guns actually create more harm than good, if the harm they do outweighs their ability to protect, and if some types of guns may be more dangerous to the common good than others. Both sides of the debate have actual logical points. If we keep in mind that we are all working towards a common goal of protecting ourselves and our country we might begin to make some progress. The populace is currently highly armed and no one is talking about taking guns away from people unless they show they have been using them unlawfully. The question of removing a gun if a person is a clear and present danger to themselves and others cannot be successfully turned into law without the sort of protections that so many of our laws lack (like the heinous patriot act). To me it seems simple common sense to have a waiting period before allowing someone to purchase a gun... for the simple reason that crimes of passion are way way less likely to occur if a waiting period of a few days is imposed.
40
@37: Well if your mouth is numb, now's the time to act! Get that lip pierced...and while you're still numb, why not choke down Mrs. Baconcat's fat hog of a cock?
41
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
42
Never understood the logic used (misused?) by the gun nuts. The one above seems to think there's some Mystical Magical Mojo associated with packin' heat that has kept the bad guys away from his fam'ly for twenny years.
So only the bad guys can see the Mystical Magical Mojo, and therefore know whom to avoid?
Anecdotal evidence: I've never been the victim of violent crime. Nor has my brother. Or our father (rest his soul) or mother, or their many brothers and sisters. And none of them felt the need to walk around packing heat to make up for some perceived inadequacy. None of them.
The rub: I own a gun, keep it locked up. So does my brother. And our dad and his brothers all hunted and owned many guns, which they kept locked up and unloaded. None of them felt the need to walk around armed 'just in case'.
So I guess not being armed also keeps the bad guys away! Anecdotal evidence proves it! And I have 40 years worth (fact).
But what still rankles me is the story of the gun nut at Folklife who was packing a gun, got boozed up and got in a fight, and lost control of his gun. In the ensuing melee it went off, injuring three innocent bystanders.
Innocent-fucking-bystanders! (well, I doubt they were actually fucking at the time).
Aren't there some rules requiring that if you are a gun nut and you absolutely must carry your little penis-enhancer that you must NOT lose control of it, or of your temper in public?
Cause I'm pretty sure that, anecdotally, if you do get in a fight in public and lose control of your little penis-enhancer, bad things will happen. But then good things may come too, like the handgun ban on City property. It's just a shame three innocent people got hurt. And it's a shame the gun-nut soccer mom died, but I agree with an earlier poster... probably the last thought she had was along the lines of "Oh shit, maybe keeping loaded guns all over wasn't such a good idea..."
More...
So only the bad guys can see the Mystical Magical Mojo, and therefore know whom to avoid?
Anecdotal evidence: I've never been the victim of violent crime. Nor has my brother. Or our father (rest his soul) or mother, or their many brothers and sisters. And none of them felt the need to walk around packing heat to make up for some perceived inadequacy. None of them.
The rub: I own a gun, keep it locked up. So does my brother. And our dad and his brothers all hunted and owned many guns, which they kept locked up and unloaded. None of them felt the need to walk around armed 'just in case'.
So I guess not being armed also keeps the bad guys away! Anecdotal evidence proves it! And I have 40 years worth (fact).
But what still rankles me is the story of the gun nut at Folklife who was packing a gun, got boozed up and got in a fight, and lost control of his gun. In the ensuing melee it went off, injuring three innocent bystanders.
Innocent-fucking-bystanders! (well, I doubt they were actually fucking at the time).
Aren't there some rules requiring that if you are a gun nut and you absolutely must carry your little penis-enhancer that you must NOT lose control of it, or of your temper in public?
Cause I'm pretty sure that, anecdotally, if you do get in a fight in public and lose control of your little penis-enhancer, bad things will happen. But then good things may come too, like the handgun ban on City property. It's just a shame three innocent people got hurt. And it's a shame the gun-nut soccer mom died, but I agree with an earlier poster... probably the last thought she had was along the lines of "Oh shit, maybe keeping loaded guns all over wasn't such a good idea..."
43
Sure, @39, "cooling off" periods are a great idea. In fact, we should do it for everything. Want to buy a new car? Come back in a week. That apartment you want to rent? Maybe you'll change your mind in a week. An abortion? Nope, take a number.
Oh, and let's not forget that person who has a legitimate need for a gun right fucking now. Maybe you could sell the gun to their dependents after the ex-husband who's been threatening her catches up with her while she was "cooling off."
Oh, and let's not forget that person who has a legitimate need for a gun right fucking now. Maybe you could sell the gun to their dependents after the ex-husband who's been threatening her catches up with her while she was "cooling off."
45
Hell I support gun rights. But I think someone who wants to open carry her gun at a kid's soccer game is batshit stupid and that she got shot to death by her husband or vice versa certainly doesn't make me think that any less.
Buy a gun, keep it under your pillow, use it to defend yourself in the unlikely event your home is invaded. Or don't buy a gun.
Buy a gun, keep it under your pillow, use it to defend yourself in the unlikely event your home is invaded. Or don't buy a gun.
47
Hey RC,
I remember a Time magazine article that related something like 44,000 total gun deaths in a year in the United States. They covered each and every single one of them - murders, accidents, suicides, self-defense - and very, very few were used in self-defense.
Granted, that's gun deaths, but you could extrapolate that guns weren't often being used in defense in non-lethal instances.
Now, give me a motherfucking break. "Unreported uses of weapons to deter criminals, crimes, violence" ??? If they're unreported (if they are in fact happening), they DON'T COUNT. And I do doubt that any are happening - what kind of law abiding gun owner would NOT call the cops after some kind of confrontation like this? Don't you guys want to see perps put in jail?
That's absolute and utter bullshit. Try to use facts and figures instead of urban legends, wingnut.
And here's a fact: I do not own a gun, and I've never been victimized by a burglar, rapist, murderer, etc, and I have lived in some high crime neighborhoods in my time. How do I do that? Locking the doors and windows. So spare me your anecdotal evidence. Unless the criminals are answering polls saying "yeah, I skipped that house cuz I thought I'd get blown away," that's also a logic fail.
I remember a Time magazine article that related something like 44,000 total gun deaths in a year in the United States. They covered each and every single one of them - murders, accidents, suicides, self-defense - and very, very few were used in self-defense.
Granted, that's gun deaths, but you could extrapolate that guns weren't often being used in defense in non-lethal instances.
Now, give me a motherfucking break. "Unreported uses of weapons to deter criminals, crimes, violence" ??? If they're unreported (if they are in fact happening), they DON'T COUNT. And I do doubt that any are happening - what kind of law abiding gun owner would NOT call the cops after some kind of confrontation like this? Don't you guys want to see perps put in jail?
That's absolute and utter bullshit. Try to use facts and figures instead of urban legends, wingnut.
And here's a fact: I do not own a gun, and I've never been victimized by a burglar, rapist, murderer, etc, and I have lived in some high crime neighborhoods in my time. How do I do that? Locking the doors and windows. So spare me your anecdotal evidence. Unless the criminals are answering polls saying "yeah, I skipped that house cuz I thought I'd get blown away," that's also a logic fail.
48
@ 43, dude, guns are different and in a class all by themselves. They aren't cars, they aren't apartments, and hell, they aren't even big knives. What applies to guns applies ONLY to guns.
I'm sorry if a few people who have a "legitimate need for a gun right fucking now" are inconvenienced, but I'm positive that far more lives are saved by it than are exposed to harm as in your theoretical abused spouse scenario.
I'm sorry if a few people who have a "legitimate need for a gun right fucking now" are inconvenienced, but I'm positive that far more lives are saved by it than are exposed to harm as in your theoretical abused spouse scenario.
49
Yes, we all know you're a racist proto-fascist. There's really no need to remind us. Thanks.
Sorry Chuck you are not allowed an opinion on guns. Period. You have no valid perspective for understanding American culture relating to guns, having not been raised here. Only native born Americans can have a full opportunity at understanding why the vast majority of Americans strongly feel a right to keep and bear arms to protect life and property.
Yes, we all know you're a racist proto-fascist. There's really no need to remind us. Thanks.
50
Hey Matt @47
You could not extrapolate that whatsoever. There are many examples of guns not being used in non lethal situations. Every time a criminal is held at gunpoint by a citizen, a gun owner brandishing a gun at the door to people out on their property etc etc... it happens much more often than you realize. It just isn't reported. No crime has to be committed, no report is necessarily taken in much of the country.
You can use a weapon without firing it. You damn right someone might think twice if they see me come to my door with a pistol in my hand. Sure I have not fired it whatsooever. However the mere presence of said weapon in my hand, has caused more than one ambitious thug to back off and leave. You need to consider other numerous similar scenarios that could happen similar to the above.
ALL of those scenarios are examples that wouldn't make it to a report, and/or onto some gun control whackos study. Even if they called the cops, it would not be part of any statistic. The report does not have a criteria for someone running off from me coming to the door with a pistol in my hand. NO crime was committed. Get it?
@42 you are a motherfucking moron. Try taking a trip to the midwest sometime. Go visit real farm country out there. I guaran damn well tee that if you lived out there, you'd know that anyone with a vehicle in their yard with hunting stickers, decoy trailer, 4WD with blood stains on the back hitch, etc etc... that it is likely that that residence likely has lots and lots of guns within. There is no doubt that many would be thugs move on from those houses, and rob them instead of houses with multiple males who hunt and own guns. You don't need any "magical mojo" to take into account that people who hunt like firearms and know how to use them effectively to kill you if you are stupid enough to enter a house full of hunters.
Seriously you guys are completely clueless to this huge subset of the national population.
But carry on making generalizations and inferences ...
More...
You could not extrapolate that whatsoever. There are many examples of guns not being used in non lethal situations. Every time a criminal is held at gunpoint by a citizen, a gun owner brandishing a gun at the door to people out on their property etc etc... it happens much more often than you realize. It just isn't reported. No crime has to be committed, no report is necessarily taken in much of the country.
You can use a weapon without firing it. You damn right someone might think twice if they see me come to my door with a pistol in my hand. Sure I have not fired it whatsooever. However the mere presence of said weapon in my hand, has caused more than one ambitious thug to back off and leave. You need to consider other numerous similar scenarios that could happen similar to the above.
ALL of those scenarios are examples that wouldn't make it to a report, and/or onto some gun control whackos study. Even if they called the cops, it would not be part of any statistic. The report does not have a criteria for someone running off from me coming to the door with a pistol in my hand. NO crime was committed. Get it?
@42 you are a motherfucking moron. Try taking a trip to the midwest sometime. Go visit real farm country out there. I guaran damn well tee that if you lived out there, you'd know that anyone with a vehicle in their yard with hunting stickers, decoy trailer, 4WD with blood stains on the back hitch, etc etc... that it is likely that that residence likely has lots and lots of guns within. There is no doubt that many would be thugs move on from those houses, and rob them instead of houses with multiple males who hunt and own guns. You don't need any "magical mojo" to take into account that people who hunt like firearms and know how to use them effectively to kill you if you are stupid enough to enter a house full of hunters.
Seriously you guys are completely clueless to this huge subset of the national population.
But carry on making generalizations and inferences ...
51
"@ 43, dude, guns are different and in a class all by themselves. They aren't cars, they aren't apartments, and hell, they aren't even big knives. What applies to guns applies ONLY to guns."
Exactly. Guns are unique, your right to bear arms was the only one of these things protected in our Constitution. It would be easier (and smarter) to outlaw cars, they do more harm and there is not constitutional right to owning or operating them.
Exactly. Guns are unique, your right to bear arms was the only one of these things protected in our Constitution. It would be easier (and smarter) to outlaw cars, they do more harm and there is not constitutional right to owning or operating them.
52
RC, you haven't really studied how to use evidence to make your point, have you?
You need FACTS. If all these guns are being used to deter crime, how are we collecting and measuring these incidents? I'll concede that it sometimes happens, but you can't make a convincing case if you don't have more than anecdotal evidence. Dr Awesome and I just gave you anecdotal evidence, just as compelling as anything you say, that you don't need a gun to protect yourself. But you also know damn well that people are victims of crimes, armed and unarmed. Nothing is or can be proven by this line of thinking.
So, if this stuff isn't being reported, blame the lucky would-be victims for not calling the cops to report (at the very least) suspicious activity or fessing up to brandishing their guns; or the cops themselves for not including it in their reports (if they bothered to respond). It's all piss in the wind until everyone decides to collate that.
NOTE: when I was addressing this in my comment, I never mentioned a gun being fired. I know well how a gun CAN be a deterrent. I just also know that they are much more likely to be used against family members, based on the Time report from years back.
@ 51, go have that debate with someone who wants gun control. I only support waiting periods and the assault weapons ban.
You need FACTS. If all these guns are being used to deter crime, how are we collecting and measuring these incidents? I'll concede that it sometimes happens, but you can't make a convincing case if you don't have more than anecdotal evidence. Dr Awesome and I just gave you anecdotal evidence, just as compelling as anything you say, that you don't need a gun to protect yourself. But you also know damn well that people are victims of crimes, armed and unarmed. Nothing is or can be proven by this line of thinking.
So, if this stuff isn't being reported, blame the lucky would-be victims for not calling the cops to report (at the very least) suspicious activity or fessing up to brandishing their guns; or the cops themselves for not including it in their reports (if they bothered to respond). It's all piss in the wind until everyone decides to collate that.
NOTE: when I was addressing this in my comment, I never mentioned a gun being fired. I know well how a gun CAN be a deterrent. I just also know that they are much more likely to be used against family members, based on the Time report from years back.
@ 51, go have that debate with someone who wants gun control. I only support waiting periods and the assault weapons ban.
53
Statistics are a wonderful thing, Matt. The only problem is, when it comes to guns, nobody has them. Not the CDC, not the NRA, and not Time magazine. Anybody who says they have that kind of a breakdown is lying to you, because the numbers are just not kept that way - by anybody.
54
So you're saying that we can't prove or disprove guns as an effective crime deterrent? Then I hope we won't hear about that anymore. You have to have some evidence if you're going to make that case.
FWIW, the only thing Time did was list out all the gun deaths in a year and give the circumstances for each death. Self-defense happened a few times IIRC (this was about 20 years ago, but there's no reason to believe our society is any different today) but murders, suicides, and accidents all happened a hell of a lot more.
FWIW, the only thing Time did was list out all the gun deaths in a year and give the circumstances for each death. Self-defense happened a few times IIRC (this was about 20 years ago, but there's no reason to believe our society is any different today) but murders, suicides, and accidents all happened a hell of a lot more.
55
I was going to comment on the tragedy of their kids actually being at home when all this went down...
...but now I think this comment thread may be an even greater tragic affront to all that is human.
...but now I think this comment thread may be an even greater tragic affront to all that is human.
56
Matt, no statistics means just that - no statistics. It doesn't mean you can use that to bolster your own argument.
59
@56,You sure as hell know that the NRA would collect that information and use it. I think the lack of this statistic is pretty good evidence that whipping out your gun to intimidate thugs doesn't happen that much.
My mom's house has had stuff stolen from the yard and garage and porch. We are a redneck family with guns, so I KNOW guns don't protect people. YAY, Anecdotal evidence!
My mom's house has had stuff stolen from the yard and garage and porch. We are a redneck family with guns, so I KNOW guns don't protect people. YAY, Anecdotal evidence!
60
I always laugh at the old saying, people kill people, guns don't. What a crock of shit, yeh, people kill people, and they bloody use guns to do it! Grow up! Your 2nd ammendement is a relic of the past and was never intended to arm the populace with the intent of allowing violence be done unto itself. It's called gun control people. The civilized world, and i'm not including you, due to your "Right to bear arms" fanaticism, would have to start a war just to catch up with you bozo's on yearly gun related deaths. It beggars belief that you have 30,000 gun related deaths a year, with 65,000 injured! Good Grief! (scource http://www.democraticunderground.com/dis…)
My country, Australia, with tight gun control, took 10 bloody years to reach the 5,000 mark, with the majority being suicide! (scource http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/0…).
It's called thinking people, and the rest of the world suggests you do it.
My country, Australia, with tight gun control, took 10 bloody years to reach the 5,000 mark, with the majority being suicide! (scource http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/0…).
It's called thinking people, and the rest of the world suggests you do it.
61
@ 60, you have to understand that here in America it's a RIGHT to own a gun, and a recent Supreme Court decision affirmed that. There won't be ANY gun control here ever.
Anyway, at this point it's just as well. You can't control guns when there are as many of them in this country as there are men, women and children. You'd have a much higher gun death rate in Australia if you had one gun per person too.
Anyway, at this point it's just as well. You can't control guns when there are as many of them in this country as there are men, women and children. You'd have a much higher gun death rate in Australia if you had one gun per person too.
62
5 min after posting the above a news article was posted that just proves my point
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/873961/…
Didn't take long for my opinion to be confirmed did it!
Thank christ i live here and just have to read about the gun toters in seppo land killing each other off by the thousands!
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/873961/…
Didn't take long for my opinion to be confirmed did it!
Thank christ i live here and just have to read about the gun toters in seppo land killing each other off by the thousands!
63
5 min after posting the above a news article was posted that just proves my point
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/873961/…
Didn't take long for my opinion to be confirmed did it!
Thank christ i live here and just have to read about the gun toters in seppo land killing each other off by the thousands!
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/873961/…
Didn't take long for my opinion to be confirmed did it!
Thank christ i live here and just have to read about the gun toters in seppo land killing each other off by the thousands!
64
Japans suicide rate is higher than the USA's, if you want to kill yourself you can do it without a gun.
Also OJ Simpson, killed two people with a knife, he could have easily killed himself, instead he ran.
Yes owning a gun does make it easier to kill people. It also makes a 120 Pound Nicole Simpson able to protect herself from OJ.
Also OJ Simpson, killed two people with a knife, he could have easily killed himself, instead he ran.
Yes owning a gun does make it easier to kill people. It also makes a 120 Pound Nicole Simpson able to protect herself from OJ.
65
@ 64, you know how stupid that point is in context of this post, don't you? This woman was armed but died anyway. Unless it comes out that SHE was the one shooting, which would be way out of the ordinary.
66
"This woman was armed but died anyway."
According to bugys' linked article, the wife was camming with a friend. I bet the husband couldn't take her showing her private parts to another man, and that's why he shot her.
Killing one's wife is deplorable, but as a pro-gun advocate, I wish he had used a Lodge (TM) cast iron skillet, or even a Chicago Cutlery(TM) santoku. Because Cookware Control, Inc. has little power in this country.
I did have an older relative who strapped a gun to his hip whenever he went to work -- all day, every day. He never realized, as Will said, that guns don't make you safer, and are frequently turned against you. But he was not paranoid, merely a cop
According to bugys' linked article, the wife was camming with a friend. I bet the husband couldn't take her showing her private parts to another man, and that's why he shot her.
Killing one's wife is deplorable, but as a pro-gun advocate, I wish he had used a Lodge (TM) cast iron skillet, or even a Chicago Cutlery(TM) santoku. Because Cookware Control, Inc. has little power in this country.
I did have an older relative who strapped a gun to his hip whenever he went to work -- all day, every day. He never realized, as Will said, that guns don't make you safer, and are frequently turned against you. But he was not paranoid, merely a cop
67
So, folks, why is it that Canada, who is as armed for bear as we (if not more so) hasn't anywhere near the gun deaths we do? More crazy Americans?
Family annihilators are a sad, sad thing. They aren't particular to the US either. Neither are school spree killers.
The fact is, most gun owners by far are reasonable, safety minded, consequence-aware adults. Most crazy folk who are at risk to being in danger to themselves or others choose not to carry guns. Those rare, rare cases that cross that line will determinedly resort to a gas can or a motor vehicle or a fertilizer bomb when a handgun isn't available.
And, in the meantime, so long as crazy remains a social stigma the way that folks on this board discuss it, fewer family annihilators and vets with PTSD are going to seek the help they need before they snap.
And you can't take away what makes crazies dangerous. Nor do they prattle on under their breath like the Midnight Bomber (What Bombs at Midnight) for the sake of easy identification. We always hear from the neighbors how he was such a nice, quiet fellow, after the police are already sifting through the ashes for stray clues.
Max Solomon @17 The vast majority that wanted to invade Iraq did so on the pretense that a strike against the US or Israel with Iraqi WMDs was immanent, all based (as we'd learn later) on manufactured intel.
If we're going to criminalize guns, I say criminalize cars first. Statistically, they're far more dangerous, and we Americans can't be trusted with dangerous things.
Family annihilators are a sad, sad thing. They aren't particular to the US either. Neither are school spree killers.
The fact is, most gun owners by far are reasonable, safety minded, consequence-aware adults. Most crazy folk who are at risk to being in danger to themselves or others choose not to carry guns. Those rare, rare cases that cross that line will determinedly resort to a gas can or a motor vehicle or a fertilizer bomb when a handgun isn't available.
And, in the meantime, so long as crazy remains a social stigma the way that folks on this board discuss it, fewer family annihilators and vets with PTSD are going to seek the help they need before they snap.
And you can't take away what makes crazies dangerous. Nor do they prattle on under their breath like the Midnight Bomber (What Bombs at Midnight) for the sake of easy identification. We always hear from the neighbors how he was such a nice, quiet fellow, after the police are already sifting through the ashes for stray clues.
Max Solomon @17 The vast majority that wanted to invade Iraq did so on the pretense that a strike against the US or Israel with Iraqi WMDs was immanent, all based (as we'd learn later) on manufactured intel.
If we're going to criminalize guns, I say criminalize cars first. Statistically, they're far more dangerous, and we Americans can't be trusted with dangerous things.
68
@19:
Here's some data that doesn't even need to have research, psychology or stats. They are fun & true nonetheless:
x = Homes with guns = w
where w = some chance greater than zero of ending up firing that gun to make a dead person.
y = homes without guns = z
where z = zero home gun deaths.
v = number of people that guns can made dead - even justified, legal, or not, made from home gun owners.
u = number of people that guns can, inversely, make alive.
(u = zero).
While we might all like to have 'z', there's no way to guarantee it , (and a greater chance, when owning a gun in one's home, of joining the ranks of w).
- the reality is that only 'y' can safely say that they 'kept their family safe from home gun violence' with their gun ownership choice.
v = a number that's far too large, centered around too much supply.
Uriel238: If murder is ethically criminal and manslaughter is ethically criminal, should we delay in making manslaughter a legal crime? criminalize cars and guns at the same time then. Or even limit legal use by requiring licenses, like we do with cars...?!!
No? Pry it from your dead cold hands you say? riiight.
To be fair, I'm all for second amendment rights to bear arms, and I even think those arms could include ridiculous shit, like sniper rifles, grenades and tanks. But I also think stupid people shouldn't be allowed access - just like there are fences at the zoo to keep people OUT of pens (otherwise secured by trenches and electric fences to keep critters in), gun ownership should be open to those who prove wise enough, not merely rich enough or skilled enough, to take ownership and its dangers seriously.
Solutions: Register each bullet, sell bullets via the state (like liquor store does), and require gun ownership licensing / training with the cash from inflated bullet prices.
More...
Here's some data that doesn't even need to have research, psychology or stats. They are fun & true nonetheless:
x = Homes with guns = w
where w = some chance greater than zero of ending up firing that gun to make a dead person.
y = homes without guns = z
where z = zero home gun deaths.
v = number of people that guns can made dead - even justified, legal, or not, made from home gun owners.
u = number of people that guns can, inversely, make alive.
(u = zero).
While we might all like to have 'z', there's no way to guarantee it , (and a greater chance, when owning a gun in one's home, of joining the ranks of w).
- the reality is that only 'y' can safely say that they 'kept their family safe from home gun violence' with their gun ownership choice.
v = a number that's far too large, centered around too much supply.
Uriel238: If murder is ethically criminal and manslaughter is ethically criminal, should we delay in making manslaughter a legal crime? criminalize cars and guns at the same time then. Or even limit legal use by requiring licenses, like we do with cars...?!!
No? Pry it from your dead cold hands you say? riiight.
To be fair, I'm all for second amendment rights to bear arms, and I even think those arms could include ridiculous shit, like sniper rifles, grenades and tanks. But I also think stupid people shouldn't be allowed access - just like there are fences at the zoo to keep people OUT of pens (otherwise secured by trenches and electric fences to keep critters in), gun ownership should be open to those who prove wise enough, not merely rich enough or skilled enough, to take ownership and its dangers seriously.
Solutions: Register each bullet, sell bullets via the state (like liquor store does), and require gun ownership licensing / training with the cash from inflated bullet prices.
69
"Or even limit legal use by requiring licenses, like we do with cars...?!!"
You don't need a license to own a car, only to drive it. Moreover, anybody with at least a room temp IQ can get a drivers license. But I would support adding a surtax to gas for mandatory annual driver training. Further, allowing only state outlets to sell gas would save lives by restricting access to the roadways -- half again as many people are killed by motor vehicles every year as with guns.
Moreover, half of gun deaths are chosen by their victims: People concerned about reducing gun deaths would work to provide the desperate with better mental health counseling, hospice care, or even assisted suicide.
You don't need a license to own a car, only to drive it. Moreover, anybody with at least a room temp IQ can get a drivers license. But I would support adding a surtax to gas for mandatory annual driver training. Further, allowing only state outlets to sell gas would save lives by restricting access to the roadways -- half again as many people are killed by motor vehicles every year as with guns.
Moreover, half of gun deaths are chosen by their victims: People concerned about reducing gun deaths would work to provide the desperate with better mental health counseling, hospice care, or even assisted suicide.
70
Rev.Smith @68, Last I checked, manslaughter is a crime in all fifty states.
We do regulate the legal use of guns, much in the way that we do cars, though licenses aren't (necessarily) required to own, purchase or carry, depending on the state and region. Still, in California it's illegal to handle a gun until twenty four hours after intoxication (the same rule for piloting airplanes) and weapons cannot be discharged within certain territories except at designated ranges.
In cases of self defense, we have the same rules as we have for legal weapons. The riot-quality pepper spray canisters I own have a statistically better take-down rate than .45 automatic handguns, and will ruin a bear's day, let alone a man's. I have to call the police if I use it in an incident, though, even if I miss. My point being, we have reasonable regulations concerning arms. When it comes to silly things like nunchaku and throwing stars, California has some unreasonable regulations.
Regulating bullets won't work very well, since common enthusiasts are better at packing their own than they are at distilling moonshine. Some even prefer their own to manufactured brands, for the option of magnumizing or augmenting the cordite, or creating special (sometimes ragingly illegal) loads like mercury rounds.
No, restricting ammo will have the same effect on the gun community that 2008 era copy protections had on the gaming community.
@69 Myself, I like to push mental health counseling. While contemporary psychology is only emerging from the (proverbial) heroic age, we do have an astoundingly high success rate of bringing people back from the brink, or with sustained therapy, keeping them from running amok.
We do regulate the legal use of guns, much in the way that we do cars, though licenses aren't (necessarily) required to own, purchase or carry, depending on the state and region. Still, in California it's illegal to handle a gun until twenty four hours after intoxication (the same rule for piloting airplanes) and weapons cannot be discharged within certain territories except at designated ranges.
In cases of self defense, we have the same rules as we have for legal weapons. The riot-quality pepper spray canisters I own have a statistically better take-down rate than .45 automatic handguns, and will ruin a bear's day, let alone a man's. I have to call the police if I use it in an incident, though, even if I miss. My point being, we have reasonable regulations concerning arms. When it comes to silly things like nunchaku and throwing stars, California has some unreasonable regulations.
Regulating bullets won't work very well, since common enthusiasts are better at packing their own than they are at distilling moonshine. Some even prefer their own to manufactured brands, for the option of magnumizing or augmenting the cordite, or creating special (sometimes ragingly illegal) loads like mercury rounds.
No, restricting ammo will have the same effect on the gun community that 2008 era copy protections had on the gaming community.
@69 Myself, I like to push mental health counseling. While contemporary psychology is only emerging from the (proverbial) heroic age, we do have an astoundingly high success rate of bringing people back from the brink, or with sustained therapy, keeping them from running amok.
71
"My country, Australia..."
Yeah, because America really wants to start copying Australia's restrictive laws, like your abortion laws for instance. Sorry, that level of government control over people's lives and freedoms just isn't tolerated in the US.
Yeah, because America really wants to start copying Australia's restrictive laws, like your abortion laws for instance. Sorry, that level of government control over people's lives and freedoms just isn't tolerated in the US.
72
Clarity –
@69: I said 'use' as in operate/drive, not ownership.
@Uriel: I should have made clear: people using cars used for killing often get a manslaughter charge. People using guns used for killing often get murder charge. Just because you believe cars to be more murderous than guns, doesn’t , in my book, make the death itself any less or more ‘murderous’: the victim is still dead So, criminalize both classes of property, if you’re going to criminalize anything.
It's a really odd doublestandard, murder by bullet and by car: both have the ability to hit you with a piece of lethal steel going freeway speeds, but only one gets the chair.
And statistically? The total body count may be higher on cars, but I think cars get that stat by operating on volume pricing. Most American households don’t have 2-3 guns in every garage.
Guns are more dangerous because of the ease-of-use vs. lethality ratio. i.e. per purposeful use, cars aren’t all that deadly. Even as a specific murder weapon, the gun is typically more efficiently lethal i.e. more dangerous. Aka I can’t put a Beemer through your left nostril from 75 yards, even with a scope. Perhaps the safety gear on cars (like airbags) skew the stats as well.
I will allow Cars some cred for being able to take out more victims in a single swipe, of course (but the ease factor still doesn’t change): A shotgun can’t compare to an out-of-control double-trailer gasoline tanker during whiteout conditions in a chain-up area.
(Sorry, morbidly channeled Calvin there for a sec)
Uriel: Totally agree that mental health care holds a huge potential for reducing all forms of violent crime: even the non gun type.
@69: I said 'use' as in operate/drive, not ownership.
@Uriel: I should have made clear: people using cars used for killing often get a manslaughter charge. People using guns used for killing often get murder charge. Just because you believe cars to be more murderous than guns, doesn’t , in my book, make the death itself any less or more ‘murderous’: the victim is still dead So, criminalize both classes of property, if you’re going to criminalize anything.
It's a really odd doublestandard, murder by bullet and by car: both have the ability to hit you with a piece of lethal steel going freeway speeds, but only one gets the chair.
And statistically? The total body count may be higher on cars, but I think cars get that stat by operating on volume pricing. Most American households don’t have 2-3 guns in every garage.
Guns are more dangerous because of the ease-of-use vs. lethality ratio. i.e. per purposeful use, cars aren’t all that deadly. Even as a specific murder weapon, the gun is typically more efficiently lethal i.e. more dangerous. Aka I can’t put a Beemer through your left nostril from 75 yards, even with a scope. Perhaps the safety gear on cars (like airbags) skew the stats as well.
I will allow Cars some cred for being able to take out more victims in a single swipe, of course (but the ease factor still doesn’t change): A shotgun can’t compare to an out-of-control double-trailer gasoline tanker during whiteout conditions in a chain-up area.
(Sorry, morbidly channeled Calvin there for a sec)
Uriel: Totally agree that mental health care holds a huge potential for reducing all forms of violent crime: even the non gun type.
73
@71 Dan, um, hope you researched your comment before posting. Firstly, i'm struggling to work out out 2 things, like, these restrictive laws you mention, and secondly, your comparison of abortion and the actual topic of this thread being guns. You come across as one of those guy's on the news who lurk out the front of an abortion clinic with a 45 strapped to your side. Tell me it aint so Dan!
Abortion in this country is of course, frowned upon. But the law allows for a personal choice by the mother up to a certain date (being when a child is lawfully considered viable) and after that, if the health of the mother is at risk, she still has the option. Yes Dan, very restrictive laws. How dare they allow people the choice....bloody goverments.
Please research next time.
Now back to gun's, murder and mayhem in the good ole USA.............
Abortion in this country is of course, frowned upon. But the law allows for a personal choice by the mother up to a certain date (being when a child is lawfully considered viable) and after that, if the health of the mother is at risk, she still has the option. Yes Dan, very restrictive laws. How dare they allow people the choice....bloody goverments.
Please research next time.
Now back to gun's, murder and mayhem in the good ole USA.............
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (73) RSS