Jump to content

Randumb Thoughts

  • entries
    132
  • comments
    821
  • views
    13,360

Guns Aren't the Problem, Ammunition Is


crazydaffodil

779 views

 Share

While I strongly dislike guns, I do realize that people have some right to own one and that they may actually be collectibles, like dolls, stamps, coins, or other such things.  But an empty gun won't hurt anyone, unless of course you swing it at someone.  It is the ammunition that really causes harm.  So instead of selling bullets that are designed to explode on impact and cause great damage, all guns should either do this

pistol-bang-24370901.jpg

or this

shikha-10april-0146elecrticbubblegun.jpg

No exceptions.  Just sayin...

  • Upvote 6
 Share

1 Comment


Recommended Comments

HerNameIsBuffy

Posted

I need one exception.  If you thin the consistence of pudding just right it works beautifully in a super soaker without clogging.

I feel your campaign against supersoakers filled with pudding to be an infringement of my second amendment rights.  

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Columbia

      Posted

      14 hours ago, Howl said:

      *silent screammmmm*  I hadn't even considered that.  

      He hasn’t put out a newsletter in a few months, but they were all pretty over the top with the fear-mongering. 

      • Upvote 1
    • sixcatatty

      Posted

      9 hours ago, BlondeAgent007 said:

      They may not be. I would have done the same thing. You never know what might turn up in police and other documents. Not to mention, he has a Constitutional right to present his defense and a SCOTUS case called Kyles v. Whitley speaks about that sort of evidence could call into question the investigation.

      These motions are hard to win but  you have a duty to zealously represent your client, not to mention protect the record for appeal.

    • theotherelise

      Posted

      15 hours ago, AprilQuilt said:

      A healthy couple actively trying to conceive could expect to have a 15-25% chance of that in any given month.

      This statistic is cited frequently by doctors and laymen alike. But it's not actually a good use of data. And I've actually never even been able to locate a study that indicates 25% chance. But there are some really high quality studies that show time to pregnancy for couples who are actively timing intercourse to try to conceive.

      If you are actively trying to hit fertile windows, after one month, 65% will not be pregnant. After 3 months, 35% will not be pregnant. After 6 months, 20% will not be pregnant. If you are not pregnant after 6 months of timed trying, you have a 50% likelihood of becoming pregnant in the next 6 months. (SOURCE: note, I rounded the numbers very slightly)

      So your first cycle trying, more than a third of couples will get pregnant and two thirds of couples will get pregnant within 3 cycles of trying. 

      Unlike flipping a coin, the longer it takes you to get pregnant with timed intercourse, the lower your likelihood of getting pregnant the next month is because you are more likely to be sub-fertile. This is similar to why most fertility doctors only recommend 3 medicated IUI cycles before escalating fertility treatment options. If you don't get pregnant in 3 IUIs, you are not likely to get pregnant from IUI. 

    • TDHuggies

      Posted

      8 hours ago, ManyGoats said:

      It was. And I think we can kiss goodbye any hopes we had that she would loosen things up. She came down hard on Gwen's dogma. Plus that guy that introduced her talk and closed the service (I think it's Durville Patton) is a MAJOR suck-up. I'm embarrassed for him, just listening to him.

      Yes I agree and totally agree about Durvelle! The whole thing was nauseating and completely cringy. NO WAY are some of the members not questioning things. Listening to Elizabeth was painful and sad. She's obviously traumatized along with being a zealot. Ugh

      7 hours ago, My Fam in RF said:

      Yes, maybe its just me but I feel like Gwen was getting tired. And Elizabeth is full of zeal. And them talking about how special they are was rough. And she severely took the book of Haggai out of context. All they do is "pray and flop" the bible and literally if they would just read it for themselves they would know they are being lied to about what the original authors meant.

      Yep Gwen was tired or preoccupied that's for sure. And if you listened to Elizabeth's ramble she slipped up a few times and shared how she really feels about taking over. She does not want to do it. She also said (not an exact quote) "I will spend the next year....I, uh...mean...I will spend the rest of my life upholding my mother's memory and what she stood for". She also said 'they leadership has allowed me to" which translates in they "have been pressuring her to" call in for these sermons etc...

      • Upvote 2
    • theotherelise

      Posted

      I got my period back 6 weeks after giving birth despite exclusive breastfeeding. But the IUD, infrequent sex from pelvic floor dysfunction and my husband's depression and our combined lack of sleep with a high need baby, and 2.5 years of unsuccessfully trying to conceive prior to my IVF baby have certainly prevented a pregnancy. 

      While I struggled with infertility getting pregnant at all, many many women struggle with secondary infertility who had little or no trouble getting pregnant previously. Many many couples deal with altered drives after having a child. Having a regular period does not mean you won't face subfertility. You can have a period even if you aren't ovulating!

      I think it's hard to grasp just how absurdly far KellyJo and Michelle are as outliers:

      • Believe in having as many children as possible with no birth control, even NFP
      • Fertile soon after giving birth and/or while breastfeeding a child under 6 months
      • Time and interest in sex soon after giving birth (or committed duty to it) and with multiple young children
      • Partners with high sperm counts, high motility and normal morphology
      • Lower than average incidence of miscarriage/stillbirth (KJ had 4, Michelle had 2)
      • Fertile into her 40s (Michelle was 43 with Josie, KJ was 45 with Jeb)
      • Limited pregnancy complications (KJ used progesterone in her final three births, Michelle had pre-eclampsia with Josie)
      • Successful vaginal birth after caesarian (at least for Michelle, no clue about KJ)
      • Limited birth complications (i.e. hemorrhaging, placenta previa, other conditions that would make future pregnancies higher risk and/or potentially cause a loss of fertility)

      Even if a 2nd gen wanted to try and follow in the 19 kids footsteps, it is unlikely they could. Only time will tell if Tori or Kendra are similar outliers.

      6 hours ago, The butcher's wife said:

      his parents did IUI to conceive him as apparently his dad's sperm has low motility. But do you think his parents would have had the common sense to convey that information to their son at some point in his married life? Because as it turns out, he has low motility as well. And they needn't have tried for over a year and worried about what might be wrong with either one of them and could just have tested for that from the get go; it's not a difficult or painful test to perform after all. 

      Most sperm count issues are not genetic, so no it's not weird at all for parents not to tell their son that they dealt with male factor infertility. If they had genetic testing done and found out it was a genetic cause, then sure they should share that information, but low motility just happens and even knowing now that they both have low motility could just be a coincidence. 

      Many many many many doctors will not proceed with fertility testing, even semen analysis until you've been trying for 6-12 months. Even with sperm issues, a lot of couples can still get pregnant spontaneously without intervention. Doctors will 100% tell you that you're overreacting and to just relax. Ask me how I know.

      • Upvote 1


×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.