bcking

Very good point. 
 
As I said, limiting the majority isn't universally a bad thing. 

Um...exactly what it says? Is there a word in the sentence you don't understand?
 
"In his visa application, Aguilar stated that he owned a business in Guatemala and had no intentions of staying in the United States after the funeral, Salem said. But embassy officials denied his request because he had a low bank balance, she said."
 
- From the article I linked.
 
 

I'm sympathetic to all these people losing their kids. I just don't see leaving a gun lying around where a child can get a hold of it as something that should ever be considered an accident. The outcome should be something the average person can anticipate, and I can't see the logic in not charging people when this happens. 

If you tax your outgoing funds at 10% you will take 30 years to save up the money so we will need to increase the national debt to cover the construction. If you can make the 10% tax stick you will have enough money to cover the interest do you are good there, for now.
 
Over time, assuming that you are taxing undocumented workers, and that your wall idea works, the funds going back will dry up and you have succeeded in drying up your revenue to cover the interest and the taxes impact only LPR and US Citizens sending money back to friends and family, some to provide education, medicine, supplemental food and humanitarian relief like from the earthquake last year.
 
So to summarize,
We have a plan to destroy the environment around the Rio Grande, Tax Americans, Increase the national debt and take food out of the mouths of some of the poorest people in the hemisphere. That is a government scheme at it's finest.
 
Good job team! 
Now who will maintain the wall?
 
 
 

I've said this many times now, can't say it any clesrer.
 
The original article was about a woman defending herself. You posted it and made some comments about how it's a good thing she didn't have it safely stored and unloaded.
 
You made the topic of the thread about gun storage by making that comment in the original post.
 
the concept of "whataboutism" is sailing over your head because you don't like an even balanced debate about the issue you brought up. You'd rather just make flippant comments about a subject and intentionally ignore the parts of the subject you don't like.
 
This is why we can't have interesting discussion here. People who make threads don't actually want even balanced discussions about a topic. They want it to either be one way or another. They can't handle that there are two very relevant sides to many issues. Too much to deal with. 

Even back then the States didn't have relatively the same pop. Northern colonies had larger populations. Southern states has large plantations and slaves.
 
The two parts of Congress was compromise. The powerful in the smaller pop states didn't want it to be totally population based.

You seem very interested in the medical malpractice thing, as am I. I'll gladly have an discussion about it if you want to make a thread. In this thread it is verging on "whataboutism". You do know society can have multiple problems simultaneously? Just because we have a bigger problem, doesn't mean a smaller problem doesn't exist. This thread was about firearms in the home, and the very first thing YOU said (you started the thread) was "I guess it was a good thing she wasn’t required to keep her personal protection unloaded and locked up." The whole reason people talk about keeping firearms unloaded and locked up is for safety, and that is primarily for safety of bystanders (children and others). That is what I've been talking about here. A direct connection to your opening statement.
 
I've acknowledged education can help and I'm all for that. However, any expert in childhood development will tell you that education will NOT be sufficient in the younger population. There would likely be debates about even when it would work. Even adolescents don't always respond to just education. In certain situations we have to do more to protect them because they are still minors and we are responsible for them. Even if we exclude adolescents, certainly education is of dubious use in the youngest children (which is why I was originally focusing on them). I didn't want to bring up statistics for firearm injures for children <19 years of age, I only did so more recently when another "whataboutism" came up regarding motor vehicles and injuries in children <19. If we do want to make comparisons (even though they don't really add anything to the discussion), we have to at least make valid comparisons.
 
We don't educate young children to not drink toxic cleaning liquids and then just hope for the best. We don't educate young children about how to remain safe in the home and then just leave them home alone (or at least you shouldn't). For the youngest children even just placing the gun "out of reach" (high cupboard) may be sufficient, but then once they are ~6-8 even that may be enough. Kids will naturally go for things that parents say are "out of reach" for them. At that age then education plays a role, but even properly educated children still make mistakes. A 10 year old child can be taught about the dangers of a firearm and still be curious, sneak into the bedroom, pull out the firearm, and accidentally pull the trigger. Are you going to blame the child? Are you going to say they weren't "educated enough"? That seems harsh. 
 
As previously said, your opening sentence was talking about safe storage of firearms. This is DIRECTLY on topic. What is off topic is medical malpractice and vehicular injury.
 
My family has been driving vehicles for around that long and to my personal knowledge we haven't had any children injured in car accidents. I guess we can stop using car seats now?

Absolutely. Hopefully with small children you have child locks on your drawers, especially ones with knives. Outlets should also be covered. Perhaps we used to have a serious issue with accidental electrocution (sadly I'm sure there are still cases). My guess is we didn't have an "electrical outlet" lobby trying to deny they are connected and not support proper protection for children.
 
I'm not saying people have to do anything about this, but to deny that keeping a loaded gun in a drawer is a risk to your children is asinine. You may think it's an acceptably small risk for your children, but it's certainly a risk. Assuming you can just educate a 6 year old properly and that's it is also a risk. There is an average of around 100 deaths a year in children due to unintentional firearm injury, the rate of nonfatal injury I'm sure is much higher.
 
While that loaded gun might afford some personal protection, it is also a risk. The question is how much risk is okay for the benefit of that personal protection? I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to children, don't know about you.
 

Often in vehicles that have completely bald tyres*.
 
*should be the mandatory spelling

We did it to eat flaming hot Cheetos and spam.

I definitely agree that there is some thinly veiled attacks at Trump, but I do also think part of it is a change in how we view Presidents as we get further from their Presidency. Plus a tendency to speak nicely about the recently deceased.

Absolutely. Hopefully with small children you have child locks on your drawers, especially ones with knives. Outlets should also be covered. Perhaps we used to have a serious issue with accidental electrocution (sadly I'm sure there are still cases). My guess is we didn't have an "electrical outlet" lobby trying to deny they are connected and not support proper protection for children.
 
I'm not saying people have to do anything about this, but to deny that keeping a loaded gun in a drawer is a risk to your children is asinine. You may think it's an acceptably small risk for your children, but it's certainly a risk. Assuming you can just educate a 6 year old properly and that's it is also a risk. There is an average of around 100 deaths a year in children due to unintentional firearm injury, the rate of nonfatal injury I'm sure is much higher.
 
While that loaded gun might afford some personal protection, it is also a risk. The question is how much risk is okay for the benefit of that personal protection? I'm fairly risk averse when it comes to children, don't know about you.
 

What a beautiful event of togetherness for our nation. If we could just get Washington to behave like adults and put our country's needs over winning at all costs and constant personnel attacks we might could come together as a nation 

Believe me, I don't like our system any more than you do. I think the only reason it works is because we generally have so much redundancy (at least in big centers where I've worked). I'm very hesitant to work in small hospitals where I may be literally the only person and I may be operating on no sleep in 24 hours. Where I'm at now we have very seasoned/experienced nurse practitioners, excellent nurses we can trust who are all operating on a more normal work schedule (12 hour shifts). It's only the doctors that do the 24 hour shifts (which again, even then I disagree with it). The counter arguments have always centered around "handovers" and how they increase the risk of error. Too long of a discussion for here though.
 
With all seriousness most new parents in my line of work that I talk to all agree that their best nights of sleep are on call (when things aren't too busy, obviously). Unfortunately those nights will also probably be the hardest for my wife. 

and this is why we can't have nice things.

Believe me, I don't like our system any more than you do. I think the only reason it works is because we generally have so much redundancy (at least in big centers where I've worked). I'm very hesitant to work in small hospitals where I may be literally the only person and I may be operating on no sleep in 24 hours. Where I'm at now we have very seasoned/experienced nurse practitioners, excellent nurses we can trust who are all operating on a more normal work schedule (12 hour shifts). It's only the doctors that do the 24 hour shifts (which again, even then I disagree with it). The counter arguments have always centered around "handovers" and how they increase the risk of error. Too long of a discussion for here though.
 
With all seriousness most new parents in my line of work that I talk to all agree that their best nights of sleep are on call (when things aren't too busy, obviously). Unfortunately those nights will also probably be the hardest for my wife. 

Believe me, I don't like our system any more than you do. I think the only reason it works is because we generally have so much redundancy (at least in big centers where I've worked). I'm very hesitant to work in small hospitals where I may be literally the only person and I may be operating on no sleep in 24 hours. Where I'm at now we have very seasoned/experienced nurse practitioners, excellent nurses we can trust who are all operating on a more normal work schedule (12 hour shifts). It's only the doctors that do the 24 hour shifts (which again, even then I disagree with it). The counter arguments have always centered around "handovers" and how they increase the risk of error. Too long of a discussion for here though.
 
With all seriousness most new parents in my line of work that I talk to all agree that their best nights of sleep are on call (when things aren't too busy, obviously). Unfortunately those nights will also probably be the hardest for my wife. 

That man (the writer) is a monster!
 
These dogs are incredible and they deserve our respect. We have several Golden Retrievers at my hospital to help the children. They are amazing. It's hard work for them. They understand a lot about what they are seeing and doing. I've spoken to their caretakers a lot. They are emotionally drained at the end of a difficult day with sick patients.  My wife wanted our Golden to be trained and to volunteer, before she discovered that the dogs are trained from puppies and each one costs like 800,000 dollars for the life-time of the animal.

That man (the writer) is a monster!
 
These dogs are incredible and they deserve our respect. We have several Golden Retrievers at my hospital to help the children. They are amazing. It's hard work for them. They understand a lot about what they are seeing and doing. I've spoken to their caretakers a lot. They are emotionally drained at the end of a difficult day with sick patients.  My wife wanted our Golden to be trained and to volunteer, before she discovered that the dogs are trained from puppies and each one costs like 800,000 dollars for the life-time of the animal.

That man (the writer) is a monster!
 
These dogs are incredible and they deserve our respect. We have several Golden Retrievers at my hospital to help the children. They are amazing. It's hard work for them. They understand a lot about what they are seeing and doing. I've spoken to their caretakers a lot. They are emotionally drained at the end of a difficult day with sick patients.  My wife wanted our Golden to be trained and to volunteer, before she discovered that the dogs are trained from puppies and each one costs like 800,000 dollars for the life-time of the animal.

37 weeks!!!! Best wishes to your family for a happy and healthy delivery.  
 

I saw this on FB, suppose to be his service dog laying with him, name Sully.
 

I'm sure you meant divisive.
 
We could ALL benefit as a nation if Trump were more like Bush, no doubt.  Trouble is, he is NOT a politician.  He is a narcissistic businessman.  And as such, with the (benefit/downfall) of being rich, he doesn't bring to the table a mouth filter.   But I think that's part of his appeal to some.  You don't have to wonder what he's thinking when he smiles at someone and speaks out of the side of his mouth.  You KNOW what he thinks, even if it's harsh or crass (Haiti comes to mind).  He's blunt.  And somewhat accurate (see Haiti).  
 
I doubt he will be elected again, unless the democrats try to put Hillary (or similar) back in power.  He rubs a lot of people the wrong way, but he was what was needed to shake America up and pull us away from the whirlpool that "normal" politicians were sucking us down towards.

Gotta admit I laughed out loud from that one.
 
I prefer Mr. Bowers and his colleague Wilkins. Make it a joint speakership.

If that were the case, a lot of people here would be in institutions.