11 year shoots 8 year old dead!

At close range a taser can be more effective than a gun because it produces instant seizure, whereas someone may still be able to aim and fire even if they've been hit with bullets several times.

One that's been fragmented in large part to the many moves she's made because of your employment.

It makes a difference when you haven't been able to stay in one place long enough to get established and move up.

If nothing else, get covered so that you can get a burial without dipping into whatever savings you have.

And, in the event that you ever buy a house, a life insurance policy can pay off the mortgage (or at least make a big dent in it).

Unsurprisingly, Tasers are illegal to own in NJ.
So far, guns aren't.
Next suggestion?

Didn't Elwood always say he doesn't trust tasers too?

Sometimes they don't even affect the guy you shot, sometimes they kill the guy you shot.

Well, that makes sense.

My burial is already taken care of. Extended family plan by my parents.

That said, Amy has refused to discuss for years ANYTHING that so much as HINTS of my dying before she does. If it even comes up in a joking context ("Felt lighted headed there for a moment, thought I might be having a stroke or something) she starts crying.

So it comes down to this: I die. She gets everything. The vehicles. My dad's house and farm (all of it paid for). Hope that is enough.

It's good, but thing is: vehicles break. Houses catch fire. Insurance companies can be huge dicks.

Me, I'd be more comfortable with cash along with those.

Thing is, you don't have to discuss getting a policy with someone to get them insured. You can insure yourself and make your wife the benefitiary (sic?) . I have a hard time believing that she'd turn away a huge payout, no matter how upset she'd be at your loss.

Or if she couldn't handle the money, make your daughter in charge when she hits 18. College loans are a bitch.

AIG Direct will give a 50 year old male nonsmoker a term life insurance for $250,000 for $14 per month. No health exam, no other health questions asked.

That is $148 per year ($14 per month) and that price never goes up. Making sure your family is provided for after you are gone is not expensive. That would probably help your wife in old age retirement and pay for your daughter's education. An actual loving husband would do it.

http://m.chron.com/news/crime/article/Boy-13-taken-into-custody-in-death-of-girl-12-6561305.php

Today we had a 13 year old shoot a 12 year old girls, the shooting was deliberate. He took the loaded gun out of his parent's house without permission. Gunforge will no doubt still be against requirements that guns be kept securely.

Can you define "securely"?

A trigger lock or safe come to mind.

It's actually illegal to carry pepper spray or mace on you on my local university campus as well, so go figure.

Kind of like Canada and airsoft, incidentally.

My question would be why has society changed so much? When I was 12 my parents didn't lock up their guns. Nobody's parents locked up their guns. Yet neither myself nor the other kids took one of the guns and shot another kid. Or maybe it did happen, but we didn't have the internet or a 24/7 news cycle to upset the easily upset, and support agendas. Any thoughts?

So even if people have a legitimate need for defense they are denied the right to non-lethal forms as well as lethal. I'm sure this wouldn't encourage crime at all.

This is what happens when you don't have more guns....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34487997

So let's start from the top down. Disarm the president's Secret Service. I hope they hit the gym a lot, because we will all see their bodies because they will conduct business in their underwear so we can see they aren't armed. BTW I hope Obama didn't visit the college - that's a "gun free" zone.

Best prior thread reference EVER! If this was a couple of years ago it would be the leather jacket reference.
But that would show the world we mean business! Underwear clad bodyguards wrestling with the bad guys! It would would be like fake pro wrestling. I can picture Obama now:

You think people are easily upset if they get upset by a kid being murdered by another kid?

You need to get a grip on reality! I take it you wouldnt have been bothered had a kid gunned down your son when he was a youngster? You wouldnt think its ok for the rest of the community to think it shocking?

http://news.yahoo.com/top-californi...38995163-c0b22834-9700-469a-856f-d4f5e9b2116d

It looks like we are getting a gun control initiative on the ballot in 2016. It's main provision is that ammo purchases would have to complete a background check. I am not really sure what good that would do and suspect the purpose is mainly to motivate democrats to show up to vote on election day.

Here's what good it would do, point by point:
1) Eleven rounds max? Not a big deal - just practice popping magazines in & out faster and you still have a lot of rounds heading downrange. Totally useless, accomplishing nothing.
2) Background check for ammo? Makes sense - guns won't work without ammo last time I checked. Anyone getting a background check to buy a gun (AKA everyone) wouldn't mind spending ten minutes for a store to run another background check so they can get ammo. That said if you know you're going to have to sit through a background check, you will buy MORE ammo when you do purchase it, so you won't have to make as many trips to the store and undergo a background check.
3) Mandatory reporting of stolen guns - reporting stolen guns is already done voluntarily. Most people have insurance - you can't put in a claim without a police report can you? Survey says totally useless. As for lost guns - who the fuck would admit to that? Insurance won't cover that. Survey says useless again.
4) Felons MUST relinquish weapons? Really now? Why not just say felons must stop committing crimes? Echelons beyond useless - laughably above useless - you get the drift.
5) Reporting all data to a federal database? California already does it - useless strikes again!

So to recap - only one of these proposals brings anything new and potentially effective to the table - background checks for ammo. Even the most "they want to take our guns" type can't complain - buying 9 mil rounds only says that you (or someone you know) has a 9 mil. No gun serial numbers are involved. This will "throw a bone" to the gun control crowd and not inconvenience gun owners.
Two of these propositions are already being adhered to - useless. Felons relinquishing weapons is holy-shit insane: being a felon pretty much spells out that you don't care about the law.

But hey - one out of five isn't bad!

1) All assault rifles in this state do not have a quick release button for the magazine. You have to use a little pen to drop the mag so speed switching magazines is going to be much more difficult than you expect.

2) No argument.

3) It basically is designed to stop people using their gun in a crime and then later saying the gun had been stolen. If it wasn't reported stolen with in 3 days then it would be a felony conviction and lose of all gun rights.

4) This one is good but requires background to understand. There is a whole list of things which result in you having to surrender your guns to police including getting hit with a restraining order for stalking or domestic violence. The cops spend a lot of time doing raids to take away these guns and almost always the owners claim they never knew about the law. This makes it the gun owner's responsibility to know and failure to comply means perminent lose of all gun rights following the felony conviction.

5) More data in the data base is always good.

Was this posted yet? http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...shot-by-toddlers-on-a-weekly-basis-this-year/

@Dinner, are you feeling okay? That reply to oldfella was completely lacking in anger.

no, that's a good'un. complete with graphics:

What is up with Missouri?

careless gangbangers?

It's a hell hole.