Sorry, 'pard, you seem to be the one with the reading comprehension. Your silly 'refutation', which I am sure you think was quite witty, actually did nothing but say, "Uh-huh, is so!" You did not address the well thought out and presented information I had in my post. Typical.
Look it up goober? Indeed, someone here does need to be looking it up, and since I presented exactly what a Partial Birth Abortion (or ID&E) is, I feel no need to do it again when I can simply refer you to my original and completey unrefuted post. The same goes for the information on the Death Tax that I posted.
I am also impressed by your claim to not be a Democrat so I can make fun of them all I want; I presume you are referring to my tagline. Your claim doesn't hold much water, since you then attempt to insult me as a 'brainwashed republican.' I don't believe myself to be brainwashed, as I examine the information, seek out new information if what I find doesn't satisfy me, and *then* make my decision and opinion, as opposed to people who claim the most bizarro things about Bush and Republicans (such as the claim that they are brainwashed).
Nice work on the "truth" pal. Now explain the following Republican creations: "Death Tax" and "Partial Birth Abortion".
Ok, I'll bite.
"Death Tax": After earnings have already been taxed, if the earner dies and leaves behind assets willed to another, then those assets, the money used to buy them having already been taxed, is taxed again. It is a tax imposed upon a person's assets after they have died; hence, "death tax." This type of tax was designed by the Democrats to 'punish' the wealthy scion families. People like Ted "Wanna come for a ride in my Olds" Kennedy supported this tax. Why would someone who obviously falls under the wealthy scion family heading support something like this? Because his wealth, none of it earned by him but by his father, is structured into tax dodges, such as his Arctic Oil company, which is structured into royalty trusts and he avoids paying taxes on its earnings. Pretty slick, eh?
"Partial Birth Abortion": This is a little easier to describe. The procedure is called "intact dilation and extraction" by those who want a nice fluffy name for it. It is literally the instigation of a breech presentation *and* delivery of the baby, with only the head still within the birth canal, followed by piercing the area under the occipital notch of the cranium with scissors and introduction of a long suction catheter to suction the brains out of the living infant, then the head is allowed to deliver. When delivering a breech presentation where you actually want the baby to, you know, *live*, if the head gets hung up (because of the angles of the mother's pelvis), you have to insert the fingers in a 'V' around the face and nose to allow the infant, whose head is constricting the umbilical cord at this point, to breathe. At any rate, since the infant is 'partially delivered' then 'aborted', the term 'partial birth abortion' is a fairly accurate name for the procedure.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. Ok, so she wasn't charged. Fine. But the fact remains that she worked directly against US soldiers being held in the worst VC POW camp, being tortured by their captors. Many of those men remember hearing her voice calling them murderers, and after having done this, the fact that she still breathes is a testament to our soldiers.
When what it should *really* say is, "Jane Fonda is a traitor to her country and the soldiers who served it. It is unknown how she has escaped being beaten to death by any of the thousands of former Hanoi Hilton inmates about whom she lied upon return from her trip to Viet Nam giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
That's because they are much more brainwashed by their media outlets than we are. The facts most definately do not show Global Warming to be human related - anyway, it all confuses atmospheric warming and surface temperature warming, as that is what has been measured for the past 100 years. Global warming by humans alarmists discount all data that proves them wrong, without mentioning that data and why it doesn't apply. THey just ignore it. Read the wealth of material from the large number of scientists who say that global warming is not a problem, or if it is occuring, is not something humans are overly involved with. It isn't really a debate between Flat Earthers and Chicken Littles; its a debate between Chicken LIttles and common sense.
You are so off the mark here, it is difficult to begin, but here we go:
You need to resort to "letter of the law" arguments
Well, yes, being that Bush was accused of 'war crimes,' I'd like to know what 'crimes' he is accused of committing. I'm funny like that - if a cop pulls me over and says he is arresting me, I'd like to know at some point what the charges are.
Gitmo, Iraq/n and Afganistan right now
Such as? Come on, be specific: what facts (not complaints from terrorists who were there for fighting US forces, for which the penalty really should have been immediate, violent, explosive death - if we hadn't wanted information from these gumbas, it probably would have been) are coming out of these places that show that recently re-elected President Bush has been committing war crimes?
You were lied to man: no WMD, no link to Al Quaeda, no imminent threat
This in and of itself deserves a huge response; I'm just home from work and sleepy, so I'll give the short and sweet version. Hussein had 12 years to comply with the agreement he signed allowing inspectors to confirm his WMD program, the existence of which is not an issue of argument as it was admitted to by him at that time. He kicked the inspectors out time and again. He fired on US and British planes which were enforcing the no-fly zone. I think there is plenty of evidence that he shipped his WMD to Syria; now we see that North Korea has apparently purchased a complete nuclear warhead from *somewhere*, and I wonder when someone might purchase something the wacky Iraqi himself cooked up. But, to be blunt, the program was in existance, we said prove to us that it is dismantled, and he didn't. For 12 years. And he did that.. why exactly?
Link to al Qaeda - are you insane? Why do you think that? There are definate links to al Qaeda, including meetings in Europe between known al Qaeda bad boys and Hussein's bad boys. Were they having tea and crumpets (or more accurately, beer and strudel)? Imminent threat: I find this to be a silly argument anyways. If someone has spent 12 years obstructing all efforts to confirm he is not trying to cook up something with which to kill mass numbers of innocent people, I don't really think one should wait around till the bomb goes off before thinking 'imminent threat.' If a cop goes to arrest someone and the guy reaches for a gun, should the cop have to wait till it is in his hand before acting? The hammer back? The gun aimed? What is your standard of imminent threat? Silly.
No, actually we're worse off, by simply repeating the mistakes of the past
What mistakes of the past? Killing people who would do us harm? How is that bad? Or do you mean the mistakes committed by Clinton for 8 years, ignoring the threat of al Qaeda?
We are a bigger target, with more attackers, than when we started.
Which would explain, of course, why we have been attacked so many times since the start of... oh, wait... We haven't been, have we? Or are you using the silly argument, "Every bomb we drop creates another terrorist"? Seeing as how the assholes who carried out 9/11 were never victims of US action, most of whom Saudi subjects educated in the west, I find this argument to be one of the more ironic, funny ones coming from the barking moonbat arena.
The current US administration is wildly out of bounds regarding the spirit of almost any law: human rights, foreign affairs, UN participation, separation of church and state, manipulation of the media, manipulation of national science opinions, and management of the environment.
Which human rights are they violating? The right to commit or plan terrorist acts as an un-uniformed member of no army, then to claim bogus Geneva convention rights as a captured soldier? That kind of violation? Foreign affairs - what exactly are you referring to? The right of the US
So because you live there, you know what happens (or doesn't happen) to the other billion or so people in that country?
Why is it that dissidents DO exist, and are dragged off (I'm not sure what time of day, however), and executed or kept in prison for the best years of their lives, for doing nothing but dissention?
That's equivalent to saying "Making a piece of shit smell bad." That whole region is a big sewer. The sooner there is an attempt at democratic rule, the better.
scholarly article on the question here: http://www.progressive.org/zinn0800.htm
Hahahahahahaha!! "scholarly article" on progressive.org! Sweet irony!! Hahahah, guess I'll be reading about the benefits of slavery on the NAACP website soon, or maybe "Why We Should Just Turn In Our Guns and STFU" on NRA.ORG....
We didnt' install Hussien as a ruler. That we supported him in his war with Iran, with whom we were having a bit of trouble at that time, can perhaps be morally questioned. However, he installed himself, by taking over a meeting, basically, and literally having the opposition taken out into the courtyard and shot. (hint: he wasn't using American AK-47's, either)
Economic pressure taking 500k lives -that's a damn shame. A damn shame that the pressure wasn't enough to cause the world to say, "ENOUGH, already, Saddam! Out of there! If you aren't going to cooperate, then you're GONE!" Of course, when we did just that, you goofballs just throw a hissy fit. I wish Clinton had had enough sack to do it, then it would have been a righteous - nay, religious - duty.
American blindness is almost...sad...to watch in action
Socialist blindness is almost...hilarious...to watch in action.
I read a great book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," by Richard Rhodes. My understanding is that the uranium bomb was theoretically proven by the test they called 'tickling the dragon's tail,' and they didn't feel the need to test it as they were much more certain it would work. Uranium had been the 'quarterback' for quite a while in the weapons program, so there was a lot of data on it. Plutonium and its use in a bomb was a different story, so it was tested here first, then deployed. If I remember correctly, the "Little Boy" was the only one of its type built; it seems it was obsolete before it even got used. There were two other 'Fat Man' types waiting in the wings, but luckily, the Japanese sensibly surrendered "unconditionally."
Ah, I see! You're damanding perfection. Geez, that would be cool, eh?
I've been starting IVs since 1989. I'm pretty good, too; I currently work with newborns, and can get in most of the time.
However, sometimes, a patient has very difficult veins to hit. The sad irony is, the sicker you are (or at least, the more dehydrated), the harder your veins are to successfully canulate, but the more you need it. Its a bitch. I've seen situations many times, where multiple people, including staff nurses, physicians, and nurses on IV teams (these are nurses in the fortunate hospital that has an IV team whose whole job is responding to pages to start IVs on kids who have proven difficult to establish access on) were simply unable, after multiple tries, to get an IV on a patient. I have then seen, on these same patients, intensivists unable to establish central venous access - basically a surgical procedure where they go into the major vein in the groin or under the collarbone or one of the jugular veins.
Now, establishing venous access is technically very simple - put a needle with a thin plastic sheath over it into a vein, withdraw the needle leaving the sheath, confirm placement by flushing with saline, and secure the whole works. And most of the time, it is this simple. But when you have a patient that several nurses and doctors can not get access on, you must consider the one common denominator: the patient; specifically, the patients veins. Things have been developed to assist in finding veins, such as special transcutaneous lamps and ultrasounds, but it still boils down to one steady handed person trying to get a very thin metal thing into a vein which may or may not be appropriate for use (too thready, too small, not straight enough) but are the best choice available.
As to some of the other things you've said: doubtful needle dulling was a problem. Steel vs. flesh being the battle it is, with steel winning, is irrelevent, as each 'stick' requires a new IV catheter, for infection control reasons. 'Not acceptable when a medical "professional"... does it..... If a medical professional (no quotes needed, but thanks) does it, then I wonder if you'd prefer a nonmedical person come give a go?
Medical errors have many causes; there are lots of papers in the literature out there, I won't list 'em here. As to your comment about doctors and nurses collapsing patients veins, no. Infiltrations occur, not collapses. An infiltration is where the IV catheter is either not in the vein at all, or more likely, has been in long enough that fluid is able to leak out of the insertion site in the vein and into the tissue. Depending on what that fluid is, you can see either minimal problems (swelling, pain) that go away, or big problems, like tissue necrosis requiring plastic surgery. Pretty shitty deal, for sure. So, you do things to continually reassess the IV site to avoid problems. Where I work, we assess the IV site every hour if it is infusing something which causes tissue necrosis. And if the fluid is running fast enough, you'll see the telltale signs - swelling, redness, complaint of pain. But if the fluid is only running at about 1ml/hr, and the IV is in, but just leaky around the catheter, then fluid can leak out, and cause damage before the problem is evident.
Hospitals spend tons of money in continuing education for medical staff. To keep your license in most states, a certain number of continuing ed. hours are required every year. IV injuries are most of the time unrelated to the 'skills' of a caregiver - they sometimes just happen.
Welfare makes up a small part of government expenditures, and most recipients are not "non-productive parasites", but productive citizens temporarily fallen on hard times
No, the majority of welfare recipients are second- and beyond-generation welfare recipients. There is little if any incentive to get off the government tit for most of these people. Social security is *not* a retirement pension plan, it was never set up to be such, but has metamorphasized into the ponzi scheme it is today.
The constitutions binds you to laws passed by Congress, and those laws impose taxes on you, and part of proceeds go to help those poorer than you, as per these laws, which the constitution binds you to.
No, the constitution denies Congress the right to pass laws that don't meet those three criteria he posted. Anything else is non-binding, and unconstitutional.
yes, because gunfights are much better then hiding out and preserving human life...
I always have trouble understanding this particular line of thinking. Maybe I just can't wrap my western-raised mind around such a zen concept; maybe I don't know enough about zen to make such a comparison. That zucks. (heh)
It seems you are siding with criminals here. If someone armed with a weapon of any type, and I count physical prowess and meanness as a weapon; if this person breaks into a house he knows to be occupied, and is intent on robbing it, here are my questions: 1)Why should you believe him when he says he's only here for the loot? Statistics (and perhaps damned lies, too) show that in such a situation, the criminal is highly likely to cause physical harm to the victims. 2) Even if such stats didn't exist; why would you want to cede power to such a person? I don't completely trust the electrician or plumber in the house unattended, and I asked them to come to the house; why should I trust someone intent upon doing me harm, who uses a weapon to threaten more violence if I resist?
Again, I just don't get it. It is not my duty to hide and let him do his 'job;' it is my duty and solemn right to defend not only my life and that of my family, but to defend that which we have worked to attain, and to defend the concept of self-defence. In short, if someone doesn't want to get shot, perhaps they should not enter my dwelling under arms while I'm home. Mmm'kay?
As usual, there are more facts to this than are generally stated by those who want to elicit the 'guns are bad, ban 'em' knee-jerk reaction.
The unfortunate Japanese guy went to the wrong house a few days before Halloween, for a Halloween party, dressed up kind of scary - torn clothes, zombie like makeup, blood, etc. The homeowners (or the neighborhood, at any rate) had recently had a rash of criminal acts. So, the Japanese guy goes into the dark carport and is met by the wife/mom, who is frightened by his appearance. She yells for her husband, who comes to the door with a firearm, and due to the victim's lack of understanding English, lack of being able to make himself understood, the dark carport, the strange makeup, and the fact that he came towards the homeowner who had the gun in his hand, he was shot and died.
It is very tragic; I can understand the victim's family's grief. However, blaming the death solely on gun ownership, or simplifying it by saying he was "asking for directions and was shot dead instead" is an in justice to him and to the homeowners. Each year, more cases of 'judicial homicide' are related to private individuals defending themselves than are related to police officers; also, each year, more accidental shootings of surrendered, or otherwise non-dangerous criminals, occur by police officers than by the general public. This doesn't mean we should disarm the cops, I think.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, 'pard, you seem to be the one with the reading comprehension. Your silly 'refutation', which I am sure you think was quite witty, actually did nothing but say, "Uh-huh, is so!" You did not address the well thought out and presented information I had in my post. Typical.
Look it up goober? Indeed, someone here does need to be looking it up, and since I presented exactly what a Partial Birth Abortion (or ID&E) is, I feel no need to do it again when I can simply refer you to my original and completey unrefuted post. The same goes for the information on the Death Tax that I posted.
I am also impressed by your claim to not be a Democrat so I can make fun of them all I want; I presume you are referring to my tagline. Your claim doesn't hold much water, since you then attempt to insult me as a 'brainwashed republican.' I don't believe myself to be brainwashed, as I examine the information, seek out new information if what I find doesn't satisfy me, and *then* make my decision and opinion, as opposed to people who claim the most bizarro things about Bush and Republicans (such as the claim that they are brainwashed).
Point 15, love, my favor.
Ok, I'll bite.
"Death Tax": After earnings have already been taxed, if the earner dies and leaves behind assets willed to another, then those assets, the money used to buy them having already been taxed, is taxed again. It is a tax imposed upon a person's assets after they have died; hence, "death tax." This type of tax was designed by the Democrats to 'punish' the wealthy scion families. People like Ted "Wanna come for a ride in my Olds" Kennedy supported this tax. Why would someone who obviously falls under the wealthy scion family heading support something like this? Because his wealth, none of it earned by him but by his father, is structured into tax dodges, such as his Arctic Oil company, which is structured into royalty trusts and he avoids paying taxes on its earnings. Pretty slick, eh?
"Partial Birth Abortion": This is a little easier to describe. The procedure is called "intact dilation and extraction" by those who want a nice fluffy name for it. It is literally the instigation of a breech presentation *and* delivery of the baby, with only the head still within the birth canal, followed by piercing the area under the occipital notch of the cranium with scissors and introduction of a long suction catheter to suction the brains out of the living infant, then the head is allowed to deliver. When delivering a breech presentation where you actually want the baby to, you know, *live*, if the head gets hung up (because of the angles of the mother's pelvis), you have to insert the fingers in a 'V' around the face and nose to allow the infant, whose head is constricting the umbilical cord at this point, to breathe. At any rate, since the infant is 'partially delivered' then 'aborted', the term 'partial birth abortion' is a fairly accurate name for the procedure.
Glad I could be of help.
Giving aid and comfort to the enemy is treason. Ok, so she wasn't charged. Fine. But the fact remains that she worked directly against US soldiers being held in the worst VC POW camp, being tortured by their captors. Many of those men remember hearing her voice calling them murderers, and after having done this, the fact that she still breathes is a testament to our soldiers.
When what it should *really* say is, "Jane Fonda is a traitor to her country and the soldiers who served it. It is unknown how she has escaped being beaten to death by any of the thousands of former Hanoi Hilton inmates about whom she lied upon return from her trip to Viet Nam giving aid and comfort to the enemy."
That's because they are much more brainwashed by their media outlets than we are. The facts most definately do not show Global Warming to be human related - anyway, it all confuses atmospheric warming and surface temperature warming, as that is what has been measured for the past 100 years. Global warming by humans alarmists discount all data that proves them wrong, without mentioning that data and why it doesn't apply. THey just ignore it. Read the wealth of material from the large number of scientists who say that global warming is not a problem, or if it is occuring, is not something humans are overly involved with. It isn't really a debate between Flat Earthers and Chicken Littles; its a debate between Chicken LIttles and common sense.
Seems like I took the wind out of your sails; nice response to my well thought out and executed el-smasho of your insipid argument. Typical liberal.
Well, yes, being that Bush was accused of 'war crimes,' I'd like to know what 'crimes' he is accused of committing. I'm funny like that - if a cop pulls me over and says he is arresting me, I'd like to know at some point what the charges are.
Such as? Come on, be specific: what facts (not complaints from terrorists who were there for fighting US forces, for which the penalty really should have been immediate, violent, explosive death - if we hadn't wanted information from these gumbas, it probably would have been) are coming out of these places that show that recently re-elected President Bush has been committing war crimes?
This in and of itself deserves a huge response; I'm just home from work and sleepy, so I'll give the short and sweet version. Hussein had 12 years to comply with the agreement he signed allowing inspectors to confirm his WMD program, the existence of which is not an issue of argument as it was admitted to by him at that time. He kicked the inspectors out time and again. He fired on US and British planes which were enforcing the no-fly zone. I think there is plenty of evidence that he shipped his WMD to Syria; now we see that North Korea has apparently purchased a complete nuclear warhead from *somewhere*, and I wonder when someone might purchase something the wacky Iraqi himself cooked up. But, to be blunt, the program was in existance, we said prove to us that it is dismantled, and he didn't. For 12 years. And he did that .. why exactly?
Link to al Qaeda - are you insane? Why do you think that? There are definate links to al Qaeda, including meetings in Europe between known al Qaeda bad boys and Hussein's bad boys. Were they having tea and crumpets (or more accurately, beer and strudel)? Imminent threat: I find this to be a silly argument anyways. If someone has spent 12 years obstructing all efforts to confirm he is not trying to cook up something with which to kill mass numbers of innocent people, I don't really think one should wait around till the bomb goes off before thinking 'imminent threat.' If a cop goes to arrest someone and the guy reaches for a gun, should the cop have to wait till it is in his hand before acting? The hammer back? The gun aimed? What is your standard of imminent threat? Silly.
What mistakes of the past? Killing people who would do us harm? How is that bad? Or do you mean the mistakes committed by Clinton for 8 years, ignoring the threat of al Qaeda?
Which would explain, of course, why we have been attacked so many times since the start of... oh, wait... We haven't been, have we? Or are you using the silly argument, "Every bomb we drop creates another terrorist"? Seeing as how the assholes who carried out 9/11 were never victims of US action, most of whom Saudi subjects educated in the west, I find this argument to be one of the more ironic, funny ones coming from the barking moonbat arena.
Which human rights are they violating? The right to commit or plan terrorist acts as an un-uniformed member of no army, then to claim bogus Geneva convention rights as a captured soldier? That kind of violation? Foreign affairs - what exactly are you referring to? The right of the US
Why is it that dissidents DO exist, and are dragged off (I'm not sure what time of day, however), and executed or kept in prison for the best years of their lives, for doing nothing but dissention?
Heh, you're pretty funny, I like you.
Economic pressure taking 500k lives -that's a damn shame. A damn shame that the pressure wasn't enough to cause the world to say, "ENOUGH, already, Saddam! Out of there! If you aren't going to cooperate, then you're GONE!" Of course, when we did just that, you goofballs just throw a hissy fit. I wish Clinton had had enough sack to do it, then it would have been a righteous - nay, religious - duty.
Socialist blindness is almost...hilarious...to watch in action.I read a great book, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," by Richard Rhodes. My understanding is that the uranium bomb was theoretically proven by the test they called 'tickling the dragon's tail,' and they didn't feel the need to test it as they were much more certain it would work. Uranium had been the 'quarterback' for quite a while in the weapons program, so there was a lot of data on it. Plutonium and its use in a bomb was a different story, so it was tested here first, then deployed. If I remember correctly, the "Little Boy" was the only one of its type built; it seems it was obsolete before it even got used. There were two other 'Fat Man' types waiting in the wings, but luckily, the Japanese sensibly surrendered "unconditionally."
At the risk of feeding the braying jackass... what law was broken by the administration?
Thank you. This is one of the best, most well thought out and delivered posts on the history of slashdot. I salute you.
I've been starting IVs since 1989. I'm pretty good, too; I currently work with newborns, and can get in most of the time.
However, sometimes, a patient has very difficult veins to hit. The sad irony is, the sicker you are (or at least, the more dehydrated), the harder your veins are to successfully canulate, but the more you need it. Its a bitch. I've seen situations many times, where multiple people, including staff nurses, physicians, and nurses on IV teams (these are nurses in the fortunate hospital that has an IV team whose whole job is responding to pages to start IVs on kids who have proven difficult to establish access on) were simply unable, after multiple tries, to get an IV on a patient. I have then seen, on these same patients, intensivists unable to establish central venous access - basically a surgical procedure where they go into the major vein in the groin or under the collarbone or one of the jugular veins.
Now, establishing venous access is technically very simple - put a needle with a thin plastic sheath over it into a vein, withdraw the needle leaving the sheath, confirm placement by flushing with saline, and secure the whole works. And most of the time, it is this simple. But when you have a patient that several nurses and doctors can not get access on, you must consider the one common denominator: the patient; specifically, the patients veins. Things have been developed to assist in finding veins, such as special transcutaneous lamps and ultrasounds, but it still boils down to one steady handed person trying to get a very thin metal thing into a vein which may or may not be appropriate for use (too thready, too small, not straight enough) but are the best choice available.
As to some of the other things you've said: doubtful needle dulling was a problem. Steel vs. flesh being the battle it is, with steel winning, is irrelevent, as each 'stick' requires a new IV catheter, for infection control reasons. 'Not acceptable when a medical "professional" ... does it..... If a medical professional (no quotes needed, but thanks) does it, then I wonder if you'd prefer a nonmedical person come give a go?
Hospitals spend tons of money in continuing education for medical staff. To keep your license in most states, a certain number of continuing ed. hours are required every year. IV injuries are most of the time unrelated to the 'skills' of a caregiver - they sometimes just happen.
It seems you are siding with criminals here. If someone armed with a weapon of any type, and I count physical prowess and meanness as a weapon; if this person breaks into a house he knows to be occupied, and is intent on robbing it, here are my questions: 1)Why should you believe him when he says he's only here for the loot? Statistics (and perhaps damned lies, too) show that in such a situation, the criminal is highly likely to cause physical harm to the victims. 2) Even if such stats didn't exist; why would you want to cede power to such a person? I don't completely trust the electrician or plumber in the house unattended, and I asked them to come to the house; why should I trust someone intent upon doing me harm, who uses a weapon to threaten more violence if I resist?
Again, I just don't get it. It is not my duty to hide and let him do his 'job;' it is my duty and solemn right to defend not only my life and that of my family, but to defend that which we have worked to attain, and to defend the concept of self-defence. In short, if someone doesn't want to get shot, perhaps they should not enter my dwelling under arms while I'm home. Mmm'kay?
The unfortunate Japanese guy went to the wrong house a few days before Halloween, for a Halloween party, dressed up kind of scary - torn clothes, zombie like makeup, blood, etc. The homeowners (or the neighborhood, at any rate) had recently had a rash of criminal acts. So, the Japanese guy goes into the dark carport and is met by the wife/mom, who is frightened by his appearance. She yells for her husband, who comes to the door with a firearm, and due to the victim's lack of understanding English, lack of being able to make himself understood, the dark carport, the strange makeup, and the fact that he came towards the homeowner who had the gun in his hand, he was shot and died.
It is very tragic; I can understand the victim's family's grief. However, blaming the death solely on gun ownership, or simplifying it by saying he was "asking for directions and was shot dead instead" is an in justice to him and to the homeowners. Each year, more cases of 'judicial homicide' are related to private individuals defending themselves than are related to police officers; also, each year, more accidental shootings of surrendered, or otherwise non-dangerous criminals, occur by police officers than by the general public. This doesn't mean we should disarm the cops, I think.
And Israel. These countries kind of knock the whole socialist gun-grabbing arguments out the ol' window.
My, aren't we in a grumpy mood tonight! I think somebody needs a nap!
We are the biggest polluter, and we are the biggest producer. Whether that is causal or not is up for debate.