>>>>>>>>>...perhaps that or related to the judge. I think part of the problem is that these kids criminals are juveniles and were not charged as adults..thus sealing their names. In addition to that blunder,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Why is charging minors as juveniles a blunder? I don't think minors should ever be charged as adults. Given what we now know about brain development, I'd find it easier to argue that some adults should be charged as juveniles.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Tamar
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Given what we know about brain development I see no problem charging juveniles as adults. Teenagers brains are more inclined to impulse and risky behavior but that does not mean they do not understand right from wrong. Children start this process around age 7 as they can rationalize decisions based upon known outcomes. ie Whether to play ball in the house knowing they will get in trouble. They can also make social decisions based on relationships with peers. ie : If I do A the other kids will like/make fun of me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>While the prefrontal cortex takes until around age 25 to fully develop, that should not give carte-blanche to minors to run amok and blame their "undeveloped brains" for their actions. We all have undeveloped brains. The process of brain reorganization is ongoing throughout our lives, yet it's a very small percentage of us who break capital laws.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All the more reason NOT to make mass killing machines easily available to them. I really am hoping that "common sense will prevail"..
>>>>>
>>>>>Sounds good. Time to ban anyone under 25 from the using the following "mass killing machines":
>>>>>Automobiles
>>>>>Heavy equipment
>>>>>Personal air or watercraft
>>>>>Pyrotechnics
>>>>>Fertilizer
>>>>>Bleach & Amonia
>>>>>
>>>>>I suppose I could go on for a few thousand more but if these don't make the point sink in nothing will.
>>>>
>>>>They don't make the point. Those things are not intentionally designed and used to kill. It is not their purpose.
>>>>
>>>>You generally present the conservative position in an intelligent way so I am not going to insult you. It just surprises me that you made that argument.
>>>
>>>There are over 200 million privately owned guns in this nation.
>>>In 2008, 303,880 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.
>>>http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/guns.cfm
>>>
>>>That's 0.1% if none of those was used in repeated crimes. If the only purpose of guns is to kill people they're terribly ineffective. ;)
>>>
>>>Blaming the object is never the proper course. Blame the person. Don't blame the gun, blame the criminal. Don't blame the cellphone, blame the idiot looking at it instead of the road. Don't blame the automobile, blame the drunk starlet driving it into oncoming traffic.
>>>
>>>Perhaps if someone in the theatre had a weapon, things would've turned out much better.
>>>http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-man-71-shoots-alleged-robbers-internet-cafe/story?id=16800859
>>
>>I was watching TV news with my daughter a few hours after the shootings. She said maybe we will finally get some gun control. I said no, we won't, and in fact here is going to be their response -- what you just said. Some NRA spokesman in the Rocky Mountains also said it, that if some law abiding citizens in the audience had been carrying some of the deaths might have been prevented. Yeah, that's the ticket, 300 million Americans going around armed to the teeth.
>>
>>We have heard "guns don't kill people, people kill people" plenty of times. Well, people with guns kill a lot more people.
>
>Not true, see Switzerland. Lots of people with guns yet much less using them in homicide. It is not the presence of the weapon but the person holding it. There's an argument to be made about American gun culture but not the presence of the gun itself.
>
>>In response to your statistics, I didn't say the only purpose of guns is criminal.
>
>No you said it was to kill, which is why I chose "violent crime" for my comparisson.
>
>>I don't have a problem with hunting, target shooting, or keeping a gun to defend the home. But if you have a defense of automatic or semiautomatic assault weapons, I'd like to hear it.
>
>I don't need a reason it's the 2nd amendment. There's no necessary reason for allowing the Klan to march in a city. They make up less than a fraction of a fraction of the population and the marches do little more than give the low man on the local news totem pole a break from his water-skiing squirrel piece. Yet it is their right and must be defended.
>
>As I pointed out to Tamar earlier, when you trample on one amendment to the Constitution you weaken them all. As designed, the only way to override a constitutional amendment is by another constitutional amendment.
>
>"Shall not be infringed"
>Infringe : http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+infringe&qpvt=infringed&FORM=DTPDIA
>1.disobey or disregard something: to fail to obey a law or regulation or observe the terms of an agreement
>2.encroach on somebody's rights or property: to take over land, rights, privileges, or activities that belong to somebody else, especially in a minor or gradual way
>
>By "infringing" of the constitutionally granted rights of the citizenry in the 2nd amendment, you leave them all open. See the Patriot Act for reference.
>
>>And I don't like the idea of people other than law enforcement carrying guns. That's a great way for minor disagreements to become deadly ones.
>
>There is no empirical evidence supporting this position. When you write "I don't like the idea" you say it all. I don't like the idea of politicians being allowed to legally slander and libel, yet, the 1st amendment demands them that right.
>
>As I already pointed out, the presence of 200 million guns (not including military and police) has not resulted in some giant escalation of their use in criminal activity.
>
>In point of fact it's the opposite.
>http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2010/more-guns,-less-crime-again.aspx?s=gun+ownership+crime+rate&st=&ps=
>
>Note : I realize you may not be inclined to trust a link from the NRA, however, I chose to use it because it succinctly gathers the relevant statistics & studies from the FBI, ATF, BJS, CDC and a couple other sources.
>
>Another hero with a gun : http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/bios/story/conceal-and-carry-stabbing-salt-lake-city-smiths/NDNrL1gxeE2rsRhrWCM9dQ.cspx
>
>These stories happen every single day and they are the reason for the trends we have been witnessing since the 90s. Legal gun ownership = more security for all.

Jake.

I could go through that point by point and make counterarguments that I admit myself would be dazzling and persuasive ;-) But you know what? It's not worth the effort. One of the things I perversely admire about conservatives, gun nuts in particular, is that they will not under any circumstances concede an inch. Maybe you think it's the first inch on a slippery slope. In any case, I think at this point we can agree we have made our arguments and that there is no point continuing to repeat them. So you have a good weekend, too.