KelliJ

It's still a greenhouse gas producer and the engine is still a stinky, noisy, shaky powerplant. But at least they are trying and it is renewable.

Is that penetration through gel/ soft tissue type material, or through a hard layer like bone? I'd have thought that the higher energy of a large calibre round would help it punch through the skull itself easier than a small round. Since the perp was shot "between the eyes" a penetration comparison using only soft tissue replication such as magazines would not be accurate. A more accurate, yet still crude, simulation would be to place a shoulder blade from a cow in front of the magazine stack. In that case the .45 would penetrate far deeper than the .22. If the shot is at an angle the difference is much greater, with the .45 still breaking through and penetrating magazines when the .22 is just glancing off. So you are right in your assumption. The larger, heavier bullet (say...37 grains v. 230 grains) would impart much, much more energy to the skull before deflecting. How do I know? Because I watched my brothers and their coon hunting buddies do just that after a 'coon came back from the land of the dead inside my brothers hunting coat. The .22 had knocked it out but had failed to penetrate due to the angle of the shot. They set up a target behind the barn and kept changing the angle until it no longer penetrated the bone. Sounds like the same thing happened to this guy. Bet he had one monster-size headache!

I watched a small herd of Holsteins being loaded on a trailer to be taken in for slaughter after the owner of the farm was arrested for animal cruelty and neglect. He kept them all, about 20 as I remember, in a lot of maybe 100' by 100'. It was horrid conditions for even a slug to live in. Then, to top it off, he stopped feeding them when he couldn't buy feed. He had a chance to sell them when they were healthy to another dairy farm but chose to starve them instead. The cows in this video reminded me of them.

Why is it there is no choice of "None of the above"? Is that something each state would have to add to the ballot individually? Or could it be done from a federal level? For the first time in a long time there is a candidate from each party that I would feel comfortable voting for. None perfect, of course, but an Obama v. McCain matchup would leave me feeling ok (at least for a while) with the outcome regardless of who won.

Clever of you to know what I think. However, you flatter yourself. What I DO think is that benefitting from a taxpayer funded education and then whining about having to pay taxes to provide benefits for others has the distinctly nasty odor of a double standard. Not to disagree, since I would love to see a FAIR government health care plan, but what would you do to address the following situation... Two children of the same age and social status attend public schools, something paid for by the taxpayers and available to every person to get an equal education. One of those children studies hard, gets good grades, and only needs to see a doctor once a year for a checkup. The other child gets poor grades, never studies, is in constant trouble with the law, and makes several trips to the ER for injuries incurred while fighting, being a show-off, etc. Why should the good student's family pay for the trouble-makers health care when that child makes no attempt to make something of himself?

Absolutely! However, historically speaking, the left has been unwilling to differentiate between those who can't and those who won't provide for themselves.

The only systemic failures are those engineered by right wing politicians unwilling to get the electorate to pay for what they want. Honestly, Professor, I don't think you actually believe every systematic failure was caused by right wing politicians. The left has their fair share as well as moderates.

Our public schools are failing our children, our roads are in constant need of repair, and ATC is on the verge of charging user fees. I would be all for universal health care if the government could run anything without making a mess of it, but such is not the case. Thanks, but no thanks. I'll retain control of my own health care.

I should have read the OP more closely. If i had i would have seen he was asking if he does get sent to jail, not if he can be sent. In light of that you were right..."yes" is an invalid answer and I offer you my apologies. However, since whether jail time is given is dependent upon so many variables, it is impossible to say with any certainty that no jail time will be given and therefor "no" is not an accurate answer and can be misleading. The only thing that can be said with any degree of certainty is "maybe". As you pointed out in your post, it depends upon many things including how the judge and/or jury see it.

The two scenarios are different. The doctor knows that the one man will die if his organs are used to save the others, and the doctor would effectively be committing murder. In the subway scenario, there is no way to know if the people down the tracks will die, no matter which option you choose. You may be held legally responsible if you flip the switch and one man dies, but it probably wouldn't be considered murder. I agree with your view on this. Might I add that in scenario #1 saving lives was virtually certain where in scenario #2 even if the healthy man was used for parts, there is still a high risk that the recipients will not survive. In either case I think it is sad that our society has fallen to a state where one must consider the legal ramifications of doing the right thing.

Yes, my real name is Kelli Johnston. Kelly was a typo that took me a couple weeks to notice (I don't read my own profile very often and spell-check didn't catch it).

Excuse me, but there is no short answer, and if there was, it would not be "yes". The weak disclaimer of your 2nd sentence does little to lessen the impact of the misinformation conveyed by your first sentence. By the way, I don't see the name Kelli Johnston on the roll of attorneys currently admitted to practice in your home state of Indiana: http://hats.courts.state.in.us/rollatty/roa1_out.jsp Let's see- a three letter word that answers the question directly is about as short as it gets unless you say "no" but then the answer would be wrong. So, on that point, you're wrong and I'm right.

Short answer-yes. But much depends upon the situation.

LOL!! Talk about LAME!! That was what is known as a question !! Maybe the Professor needs to go back to school and retake English 101. Lame^2 response. You know perfectly well what you were suggesting, and were too damn idle to check the data source. With all due respect, Professor, you'd be wise to admit your error and be done with it. This latest response is, as you said, "lame^2". You, of all people, should know not to post responses based on what you think was meant, but rather based only on was exactly was written. I made no allegations, only asked a simple question, one that I even said only you know the answer to. As far as being too damn idle to check a data source, I think the first few posts in this thread show that it was you who was "too damn idle to check a data source" and proceeded directly to condemning the referenced article.

LOL!! Talk about LAME!! That was what is known as a question !! Maybe the Professor needs to go back to school and retake English 101.

Don't expect an answer anytime soon. The Prof. has yet to answer my question as to what the "unfounded allegations" were that I supposedly made. If he feels there are such statements he should let them known. If not, he should correct himself.

Lame. The OP assertion was accepted without question until I raised one. When I quoted numbers from the FBI, if you doubted my honesty you could have checked for yourself instead of making an unfounded allegation. Unfounded allegation? Pray tell, dear Sir, what unfounded allegations are you accusing me of making? As for accepting the data or anything else in the article, I neither accept nor dismiss any of it. As I stated it makes no difference to me whether it is accurate or not. You were the first to question the accuracy of anything posted in this thread. If you don't want people challenging the accuracy of stuff you present, then don't get your panties all in a wad and question the accuracy of other people's posts. What is good enough for the goose is good enough for the gander.

I picked the FBI data because that is what you posted and assumed, without even bothering to check, that the bit of data referenced in the article was bad and inferior to the data you posted. I don't think asking a simple question is trolling.

I know exactly where to find the data on the 'net. Than you for the help anyway.

No and No. Those numbers could have been manipulated at any one of many points including typo errors when entered, intentional "typos", hackers, people who download the data and then change it, etc. Did the FBI change it? I don't know and neither do you. Did YOU change it? Again, I have no idea. Only you know the answer to that. Tell me, why should anyone here respect your data anymore than you respect anyone else's? With all due respect, Professor, you seem to categorize any data you don't like as junk yet expect everyone else to except yours as gospel. Given the distaste you have for the present Bush administration it is surprising that you would trust data from any branch of the U.S. Government.

Last I checked the number of crimes committed by guns was still 0. I have a CCW permit. I rarely carry. What surprises me are the number of people who, for whatever reason, support the 2nd, support CCW, yet criticize those who do choose to carry. Very confusing, to say the least.

I once threatened to sue my daddy for 100 billion-gazillion dollars because he grounded me for three days. Of course, I was only 5 years old at the time.

Please tell us how the FBI manipulates the number of homicides. I'm sure we'd all like to know. Please tell us where I said it was the FBI who manipulated the numbers.

You mean the Professor is trolling??? He wouldn't do that....would he? I'm pretty familiar with how statistics can be manipulated to show only what the presenter wants shown. I learned much of it from working on a political campaign and was assigned exactly that task.

Since you want to get technical then we can't trust the stats you show from the FBI. After all, you didn't show how those stats were collected, who did the work, what standards they used in defining a violent crime vs a non-violent crime, etc. I'm glad to hear you have no problem with honest citizens carrying concealed weapons. My only remaining question is why, it seems, every time someone starts a thread about CCW you post negative replies? Maybe I missed some positive ones so I may be wrong.