What's on your mind now?

[outin]

If someone put Mozart on my playlist I'd become one mad zombie 

[j_menz]

What if the volume is too high or low?  Or the speakers are crappy? 


If they bury that, the wires are goingto get moisture.  The moisture will run down.  And it wil short out the system.   If it's wireless, it's going to run out of batteries eventually.  "Yes, yes, we'll bury you with your music playing.  Don't worry."  Then a few days later the batteries stop working. You're down there for all eternity without music after that.  Or until your ears deteriorate. Or brain.  Which all of course wouldn't be working anyway.  I suppose the volume could be cranked up in that case. The louder, the better.

I bet it's a great place to have a job in the complaints department, though.

[j_menz]

If someone put Mozart on my playlist I'd become one mad zombie 

Maybe you'll like him better now:

[outin]

Maybe you'll like him better now:

He may be cute but the music is still so damn annoying...

[49410enrique]

Come on, that video is old, they tore down that skatepark and built a new one somewhere else in LA like a few days ago.

Get with the program!

No but yeah, that's pretty sick, I can't do any of that lol.

merry xmas!
https://vimeo.com/55351695

[oxy60]

What if the volume is too high or low?  Or the speakers are crappy? 


If they bury that, the wires are goingto get moisture.  The moisture will run down.  And it wil short out the system.   If it's wireless, it's going to run out of batteries eventually.  "Yes, yes, we'll bury you with your music playing.  Don't worry."  Then a few days later the batteries stop working. You're down there for all eternity without music after that.  Or until your ears deteriorate. Or brain.  Which all of course wouldn't be working anyway.  I suppose the volume could be cranked up in that case. The louder, the better.

Can anyone confirm an old rumor that Mary Baker Eddy has a phone in her grave?

[Bob]

https://www.ebaumsworld.com/pictures/view/82963899/

Check out the 12th picture.  There's a thread about that location on here somewhere.

So that's a high contrast image?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

God damn it I freaking submitted an application but I freaking selected 'unselected major', what the heck?!!??!

[oxy60]

When will anyone decide to secure/close campuses? The elementary schools closest to me are locked. Nobody can just wander onto the campus without passing through the office.

Why not once close the barn door BEFORE the horse escapes?

 

[Bob]

I've only seen one school that had a closed off entry room/area with bullet-proof walls. I wondered what I'd walked into when I saw that, what the community was like.

All of them I've seen have locked doors during the day and staff would notice a weirdo getting in, wandering the halls.

In the morning and end of the day especially they have to move hundreds of a kids.  Parents, grandparents, relatives, etc., appear too, probably heading to the office like they're supposed to.

But that's probably not going to stop someone with a gun.  Add to it that it's a relative of an employee?  They're in the office easily.  Bang, bang, bang, hop over the desk.... Schools aren't safe from something like that.  They'd probably have to build the building differently.  Even then, you've still got the issue of when they're herding hundreds of students around.  Parents are going to expect/demand something "normal."  As opposed to something that makes you feel like you're a criminal and being scrutinized like the one unusual school I visited once.  That still wouldn't have stopped this new nut.

And then there are field trips, things off campus.  The school might be safe, but eventually people will leave that building. 


A couple interesting things I heard.  Usually nuts like that have a track record building up to that event.  He probably did some other unusual red flag things in the past.  And the guns were registered to the mother, purchased legally.  But why did a kindergarten teacher has an assault rifle?   That was from yesterday afternoon though.  I stopped paying attention to the news on that after that.

[Bob]

I was thinking yesterday.... If a school building had a completely separate entrance for visitors (including parents)... Imagine how much crap they would get for making parents use a separate door.  Or how much hassle they would go through if they had a metal detector on it.  Probably impractical.

Even still, in this case,it would have been someone's son.  They would have let him in.

A body scanner?  Security guard at every building with a metal detector?  Expensive (paying the extra worker, higher taxes) and a joke at 99% of the little schools like the one in this case.

I guess it would be some kind of cultural change.  Maybe one security employee in charge of "building security" instead of homeland security.  And even then, when it's a relative and if the metal detector gets accidentally tripped for the billionth time... Someone would let them in.

[cmg]

A couple interesting things I heard.  Usually nuts like that have a track record building up to that event.  He probably did some other unusual red flag things in the past.  

It's hard to see what "red flags" dropped would even be noticed today.  During the Reagan Era (remember those lovely years?) all kinds of regulations were dismantled to allow the rich to reach the greed rampage we're all familiar with today.  Also, dismantled was the national Community Mental Health Program which, nationwide in America, provided funding for excellent, outpatient and inpatient mental health facilities and therapists and psychiatrists.  Very low cost and an efficient way to screen people with serious mental health issues.  It worked beautifully.  But Reagan dumped it.  In NYC alone, schizophrenics and other very ill people were tossed out of group homes and rendered homeless.  They wandered, as they do now, the city streets and are those deranged individuals who "hear voices" and push New Yorkers onto subway tracks as trains are approaching.

If America wants to really get a grip on this violence, it needs to provide, as they did in the 1970s, a national mental health system to care for people at risk.  But, ohhhh noooooo.  The GOP and Fox News, which most idiot Americans watch, feel stuff like that is pushing us towards the mythical "fiscal cliff."  The GOP would rather fund wars, further enrich the rich through tax cuts and keep the greed-fest going.  Their "trickle down" theory is that the rich will be philanthropic and "give back" to the unfortunate.  This has proven to be a cynical lie.  Recent studies have shown that the richer people get the more they insulate themselves from the lives most of us live.  They become grandiose and insensitive to any suffering but their own.  In short, they not only don't give a damn but think that people who aren't rich are lower life forms and deserve to go under.  

As for gun control, weapons no one would ever use for hunting are commonly available to anyone in this barbaric nation.   God help us.  With horrible economic times, more carnage will result.  People are losing it out there.  Especially young ones with mammoth college loan debt who can't find work.  Be prepared to duck.

[Bob]

If those kindergarteners all had guns....

[lloyd_cdb]

If those kindergarteners all had guns....

If that guy didn't have a gun...

[Bob]

He would have done something else then.

[lloyd_cdb]

My extremely annoyed viewpoint after having a discussion with my older brother who is consistently unable to form logical arguments.

The 'mental health' argument is ridiculously vague and a cheap cop-out to justify how one gun owner is different than another. My older brother has an assault rifle and 2 handguns.  Myself and my younger brother are both against the perversion of the 2nd amendment (extremely opinionated statement of course).  My younger brother also has bipolar.  He displayed no signs of bipolar until he was 20 and then had an episode that triggered it.  My older brother had these guns prior to my younger brother's diagnosis.  What happened if he took those guns the day his illness was triggered?  In addition, we're lucky enough to have good healthcare to pay for treatment and have it diagnosed in the first place.  Sure there are red flags that pop up in some cases, but that's not always true.  As has been mentioned, even if my younger brother was denied a gun, he still has access to one.  I also have epilepsy, and have had it my entire life.  It took a long time to properly diagnose.  I have a friend who has the EXACT same epilepsy as me, but had her first seizure at 24.  The brain is a weird organ, and it's impossible to truly and accurately predict.  Focusing on the prevention of different outlets is significantly easier than focusing on how to prevent them from thinking of that outlet.

People WANT guns, they don't NEED them.  Often, they believe the 2nd amendment gives them the right to defend themselves. For every 1 case of defending themselves there are 4 cases of unintentional injury. Due to the numbers, they are actually endangering themselves. They ignorantly (or intentionally for that matter) endanger themselves and then use self-defense to justify the need for the 2nd amendment.  From 2nd amendment justifying the right to defend, to the right to defend justifying the 2nd amendment.  Talk about a logical argument  .

Regardless of all of the "2ND AMENDMENT" vs. "NUH-UH" arguments, people vote their wallet regardless of the rest of the crap that goes along with it.  Here is my proposal:

Medical costs of gun injuries over our lifetime will cost tax payers $1.1b. Using both the population and average years spent working, this amounts to $78,000 in taxes per person over their working career, or $1,733 per year. Let’s switch that into household numbers. The average household will spend $212,560 over a lifetime, and $4,724 per year. ~40% of households own guns. Let’s say you only tax those who choose to own a gun: $531,400 lifetime, $11,800 per year. ~18% of households own handguns (which is generally the issue of targeting people vs. animals). $1,180,890 lifetime, $26,242 yearly. Feel free to own a gun, just understand the costs associated with it.

Not necessarily practical, but a reasonable thought experiment.  Although, it might increase bank robberies to pay for the taxes...

By the way, the kindergarten teacher has an assault rifle so she can go to the shooting range and shoot paper targets of people. <-- another statement coming from recent annoyance.

[lloyd_cdb]

He would have done something else then.

He sure would have.  But guns are one of the easiest ways to kill people, and are easily accessible.  Even fertilizer sales are tracked more rigorously than guns.

[cmg]

He would have done something else then.

Well, that's the classic gun lobby argument, too.  I heard some maniac on Fox claim that that pro football player who shot his wife, then himself could just as easily, because of his super strength, strangled them or smothered them to death.  He just happened to HAVE a gun.  That's such sh**.  These guns in use now fire multiple rounds at a fast rate so maniacs don't have to reload that often.   It's why American massacres are so deadly.  These types of weapons are extremely hard to get in other Western countries.  Not here.  "Freedom" to have the means to kill comes first.  American gun deaths lead the world by a huge margin and that is why.  

Yes, that kid might have had a club or a bow an arrow.  Or a bomb.  But what he HAD was what was lying around the house, thanks to his mom -- lethal weapons used for warfare.  No one, not in the military or law enforcement, has the need or right to purchase a weapon capable of mass destruction in the quickest possible amount of time.  And clearly unstable mothers should be screened before they can purchase for "household use" in the affluent suburbs of Connecticut, weapons that can mow down dozens in a few minutes.  The Second Amendment does not confer that right.

[Bob]

He sure would have.  But guns are one of the easiest ways to kill people, and are easily accessible.  Even fertilizer sales are tracked more rigorously than guns.

And Sudafed.  I want my Sudafed back.  The real stuff.  Darn meth addicts...

[lloyd_cdb]

1) I heard some maniac on Fox

2) American gun deaths lead the world by a huge margin and that is why.  

3) No one, not in the military or law enforcement, has the need or right to purchase a weapon capable of mass destruction in the quickest possible amount of time.  

4) And clearly unstable mothers

5) The Second Amendment does not confer that right.

1) some entertainer* on Fox.

2) In absolute terms, yes.  Per capita we are 12th.  Regardless, it's still absurd.

3) Are you talking about assault rifles, hand guns both?  There will always be illegal weapons around, especially considering there are already 200m guns in the US. Not to mention all the South American countries (which constitute the majority of the 11 above us).  Armed police officers make me feel much more safe than arming everyone, or disarming everyone for that matter.

4) Or just teachers.  I think it's ridiculous that someone who teaches 6 year olds should be allowed to even come across an assault rifle.

5) It confers the right for me to mount cruise missiles on my roof pointed at my neighbor's house JUST IN CASE they decide to let their dog poop on my lawn.  THIS IS 'MURICA.  I'm gonna defend my property.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

They should definitely do something about this right to bear arms bullshit.

What the freaking heck do you need a freaking gun in your house for?

[lloyd_cdb]

What the freaking heck do you need a freaking gun in your house for?

That's exactly the thing.  That is what is said to hide behind a constitutional 'right'.  They WANT it but refuse to just say it that way.  Thinking you actually need it based on available data is either unintentional ignorance, or willful ignorance.

There are much better ways to decrease crime than just banning guns though.  It's too much of a black and white argument to ever actually significantly move in one direction or the other. There are more than 200 million in the US.  They won't just magically disappear.  What should be enforced is ammo restrictions. Hunting rifle ammo is one thing. But the only places that should be allowed to sell handgun ammo should be shooting ranges, with none of it being allowed to leave the premises.  Of course there will be illegal trafficking like any black market activity, but it would drastically decrease handgun violence.  It's fine to have a gun in your house as long as you can't shoot it.  No harm no foul.

[cmg]

Gail Collins in the "New York Times" echoes my thoughts on this gun issue with real research (which I don't have time to do) behind it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/opinion/collins-looking-for-america.html

[cmg]

What the freaking heck do you need a freaking gun in your house for?

The NRA would probably say that guns make a good 'nite lite' when they're fired, or they're great for stuck zippers:  just blow the suckers open.

[49410enrique]

And Sudafed.  I want my Sudafed back.  The real stuff.  Darn meth addicts...

dude you can (should) still be able to get it, you just have to buy it at the pharmacist counter, show id, sign, buy. that's how it is over here at least, it's not 'outlawed' just some silly limit on buying huge/massive amounts at one time/in a short period

They should definitely do something about this right to bear arms bullshit.

i don't know man. i think it's pretty awesome. i mean walking around with claws like that? talk about freakin sweet!



im just sayin

[oxy60]

I have lived in a few European countries where guns are outlawed. In each country I could buy all the semi-automatic weapons, including all the ammo and clips I wanted.

Outlawing guns will be like the law requiring everyone have auto insurance. Can it be enforced? I still pay an extra premium for uninsured motorists.

[lloyd_cdb]

Just because you CAN get it on the black market doesn't mean everyone WILL get it on the black market.  If you want to kill people, you're going to find a way.  On the other hand, most people are law abiding citizens in regards to things that are harshly enforced.

Beyond all that, there has been a steady decrease in the number of households with guns over the last 30 years anyway, along with a decrease in crime.  I can't speak to causality, just pointing out correlation.  I think it's partially due to the population migrating towards cities and out of the rural areas, since most cities have significantly stricter policies on firearms.  Change is slow and always will be slow, but it's happening on it's own anyway.  People just tend to react strongly to large single incidents in comparison to multiple smaller incidents.

[Bob]

I thought you had to get a prescription now for Sudafed.  The stuff they replaced it with doesn't work at all.  

[lloyd_cdb]

I thought you had to get a prescription now for Sudafed.  The stuff they replaced it with doesn't work at all.  

Maybe there are specific state laws?  I was under the impression it was how enrique mentioned it.

[Bob]

And here I've been saving my last little strip of real Sudafed for ten years for the rare occasion I want something that really works.  Only seven or either left.  They are.. precious... to me.   Haha.  I can't use them, but they're there if I need them. 

[lloyd_cdb]

Even though you can't buy it, there's still a black market for it.


Hook me up.

[49410enrique]

And here I've been saving my last little strip of real Sudafed for ten years for the rare occasion I want something that really works.  Only seven or either left.  They are.. precious... to me.   Haha.  I can't use them, but they're there if I need them. 

basically what i outlined, not outlawed, just restricted (and i even read there have been state repeals of certain aspects going into effect in 2013 by various states)
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/informationbydrugclass/ucm072423.htm

excerpt:
...". Does this mean I need a prescription from my doctor to buy pseudoephedrine?

No.   The Act allows for the sale of pseudoephedrine only from locked cabinets or behind the counter.   The law:

limits the monthly amount any individual could purchase
requires individuals to present photo identification to purchase such medications
requires retailers to keep personal information about these customers for at least two years after the purchase of these medicines. ..."

[oxy60]

Just because you CAN get it on the black market doesn't mean everyone WILL get it on the black market.  If you want to kill people, you're going to find a way.  On the other hand, most people are law abiding citizens in regards to things that are harshly enforced.

Beyond all that, there has been a steady decrease in the number of households with guns over the last 30 years anyway, along with a decrease in crime.  I can't speak to causality, just pointing out correlation.  I think it's partially due to the population migrating towards cities and out of the rural areas, since most cities have significantly stricter policies on firearms.  Change is slow and always will be slow, but it's happening on it's own anyway.  People just tend to react strongly to large single incidents in comparison to multiple smaller incidents.

I don't know about other cities but just in South Central Los Angeles there were at last count 64,000 armed gang members on the streets. I don't seem to recall a school shooting in South Central ever.

If gun laws are tightened how will that crowd be disarmed? What about East LA?

[Bob]

basically what i outlined, not outlawed, just restricted (and i even read there have been state repeals of certain aspects going into effect in 2013 by various states)
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drugsafety/informationbydrugclass/ucm072423.htm

excerpt:
...". Does this mean I need a prescription from my doctor to buy pseudoephedrine?

No.   The Act allows for the sale of pseudoephedrine only from locked cabinets or behind the counter.   The law:

limits the monthly amount any individual could purchase
requires individuals to present photo identification to purchase such medications
requires retailers to keep personal information about these customers for at least two years after the purchase of these medicines. ..."

Something to look into for sure.

[lloyd_cdb]

I don't know about other cities but just in South Central Los Angeles there were at last count 64,000 armed gang members on the streets. I don't seem to recall a school shooting in South Central ever.

If gun laws are tightened how will that crowd be disarmed? What about East LA?

Mis-identifying the problem is destructive to providing a solution.  As I've said, it's not about gun laws.  200m+ guns aren't going to disappear overnight.  Ammo restrictions would be far more effective and timely.  Of course nothing changes overnight, but saying "that won't have an effect" is just an excuse to do nothing.  It will have an effect 100 years from now, isn't it worth at least doing something for our children's children? (I will revise my opinion if the zombie apocalypse happens in 5 days).

In regards to the black market, there is a popular misconception as to where those 64,000 guns came from.  More than half of the black market guns were purchased using ostensibly legal channels, and not from theft of legal gun owners(10-15%).  An excerpt from a PBS article on interview with an ATF agent:

"...the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf... one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers... illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen."

The interview ends by one of the most consistent statements we've all seen:

""Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

Who should we focus on, the illegal owner, or the illegal seller? (not that those are the only options) I'm not quite sure what the restrictions are on becoming an FFL though.

[Bob]

Ah, my precious.....

*Bob hordes his newly refound Sudafed.*  Real Sudafed... It does exist....

[49410enrique]

need to buy some nunchaku. craving pancakes. i want a onesie. i want to wear the onesie while i feast on pancakes with my new nunchaku.

[lloyd_cdb]

After buying sudafed and the government reading his posts, Bob is now red-flagged by the DEA.

[oxy60]

Mis-identifying the problem is destructive to providing a solution.  As I've said, it's not about gun laws.  200m+ guns aren't going to disappear overnight.  Ammo restrictions would be far more effective and timely.  Of course nothing changes overnight, but saying "that won't have an effect" is just an excuse to do nothing.  It will have an effect 100 years from now, isn't it worth at least doing something for our children's children? (I will revise my opinion if the zombie apocalypse happens in 5 days).

In regards to the black market, there is a popular misconception as to where those 64,000 guns came from.  More than half of the black market guns were purchased using ostensibly legal channels, and not from theft of legal gun owners(10-15%).  An excerpt from a PBS article on interview with an ATF agent:

"...the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf... one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun. Or, several underage people walk into a store and an adult with them makes the purchases. Both of these are illegal activities.

The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers... illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen."

The interview ends by one of the most consistent statements we've all seen:

""Let's be honest. If someone wants a gun, it's obvious the person will not have difficulty buying a gun, either legally or through the extensive United States black market."

Who should we focus on, the illegal owner, or the illegal seller? (not that those are the only options) I'm not quite sure what the restrictions are on becoming an FFL though.

BTW, that shooter shot his way into the school. They were locked in but not on lock down. Strengthening those exterior doors might be the cheapest and quickest solution.

*Bob hordes his newly refound Sudafed.*  Real Sudafed... It does exist....

We just swipe our DL, sign the screen and buy all the "sufed"  we want. When it is out of date it's worthless...

[lloyd_cdb]

BTW, that shooter shot his way into the school. They were locked in but not on lock down. Strengthening those exterior doors might be the cheapest and quickest solution.

 I would never advocate against that solution and I agree it would clearly have some impact on major incidents, however:

Focusing on single and large incidents, again, doesn't address the underlying issues.  More gun violence against students are committed OFF of school property than on it. Large incidents tend to be the only thing the media cares about and subsequently the oblivious population.  It still doesn't address the pertinent issue.  Children are no different than 25yo's who are no different than 80yo's: they are all people.  On the other hand, children just have a greater emotional impact on society. But addressing a minute aspect of the violent crimes would just distract (or even blind) the public from the major issue.

Mass murders this year (US) accounted for 140 deaths, which is not limited to children - Mass shootings are categorized by 4 or more deaths in a single incident.

There was 1 mass school shooting in the 90's, 1 in the 00's, and now 1 in the 10's (so far and to my knowledge. It may be more since, as I've mentioned, only major ones make the news). 

There are 99,000 public schools in the US.

However, in the 2008-2009 school year, there were 55.6m children k-12 and 38 violent deaths on school property (including suicide, and not limited to guns).  I can't find a more recent statistic, but even having a major incident this year won't affect the general numbers given school crime has been steadily decreasing.

3,000 children have been killed by firearms alone this year.

Let's focus on 1.2% of the crimes to children to make the public "feel safe"?  It's a ridiculous concept that hides the true issues.  It's like stomping on a termite while your house crumbles around you, saying "problem solved".

[Bob]

I'm hording my one package of it.  Doesn't seem like much in it.  Just one little sheet of them.  I thought I'd have two sheet for what I paid.

[Bob]

Quoting Hunger Games, "May the odds be ever in your favor," to students would be a bad idea right now.

[Bob]

I imagine all the kids with Aspergers... Everyone's looking at them now.  And will be... for a long time or permanently now. 

[oxy60]

I would never advocate against that solution and I agree it would clearly have some impact on major incidents, however:

Focusing on single and large incidents, again, doesn't address the underlying issues.  More gun violence against students are committed OFF of school property than on it. Large incidents tend to be the only thing the media cares about and subsequently the oblivious population.  It still doesn't address the pertinent issue.  Children are no different than 25yo's who are no different than 80yo's: they are all people.  On the other hand, children just have a greater emotional impact on society. But addressing a minute aspect of the violent crimes would just distract (or even blind) the public from the major issue.

Mass murders this year (US) accounted for 140 deaths, which is not limited to children - Mass shootings are categorized by 4 or more deaths in a single incident.

There was 1 mass school shooting in the 90's, 1 in the 00's, and now 1 in the 10's (so far and to my knowledge. It may be more since, as I've mentioned, only major ones make the news). 

There are 99,000 public schools in the US.

However, in the 2008-2009 school year, there were 55.6m children k-12 and 38 violent deaths on school property (including suicide, and not limited to guns).  I can't find a more recent statistic, but even having a major incident this year won't affect the general numbers given school crime has been steadily decreasing.

3,000 children have been killed by firearms alone this year.

Let's focus on 1.2% of the crimes to children to make the public "feel safe"?  It's a ridiculous concept that hides the true issues.  It's like stomping on a termite while your house crumbles around you, saying "problem solved".

Recently in LA we were running 10 homicides a day. That is in a population of 20 million. Do the math and put that ratio against 300 million.

And what do we do against a suicide killer?

[lloyd_cdb]

I imagine all the kids with Aspergers... Everyone's looking at them now.  And will be... for a long time or permanently now. 

My older brother has Aspergers.  He owns an assault rifle and two handguns. He was the one I mentioned before my rant, who had said "the country needs to address mental illness" directly after the shooting.  It was the one rare occasion I really wanted to punch him in the face.  Adding to that, I have 2 other siblings with bipolar.  He all but threw them under the bus with that comment, which is clearly coming back to bite him in the ass.

Beyond that, my younger brother was diagnosed with bipolar at the ripe old age of 19.  He had never shown any signs of it at all, but it was just suddenly triggered by a non-traumatic event.  My sister is similar and was diagnosed with manic bipolar at 24.  MANY mental illnesses are event driven.  I guess I'm just biding my time... People with aspergers and other illnesses in the autism spectrum are the 'lucky' few who are easily diagnosed and treated early in life.

[lloyd_cdb]

Recently in LA we were running 10 homicides a day. That is in a population of 20 million. Do the math and put that ratio against 300 million.

And what do we do against a suicide killer?

Is this a response to something specific I said or just some continuation?  I just wasn't completely sure where you were going with these numbers for conversations sake (not meant to be argumentative).  Oddly, I've seen drastically different numbers on a nationwide scale, so I'll try to track down something more accurate (the stat boiled down to 44 per day nationwide, which would mean 25% were in LA which seems absolutely ridiculous.) The numbers I found were 2009:

Nationwide homicides: 15,241
By firearms: 9,146

I'll try to find more info.

In regards to the suicide killer, murders will always happen.  It's futile to try and prevent that other than putting everyone in their own box.  It accounts for such a minute amount of the population that addressing it seems to be overly specific.

Side note:  A quick addition to the "let's arm our students" debate:
100,000 students carry a gun to school - at least 1 for every school on average.  Just an interesting addition to the "get rid of gun free zones" discussion.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Okay so I got denied my live audition to San Francisco conservatory.

I feel sooooooo salty!!!

[outin]

Okay so I got denied my live audition to San Francisco conservatory.

I feel sooooooo salty!!!

Oh, sorry about that. Any explanation why?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Oh, sorry about that. Any explanation why?

Nope!  I didn't even get invited to a live audition!  They pretty much we like...

"Yeah man, you kinda suck.  So we don't want you.  But here's our concert schedule!  You could come see us!"

[j_menz]

Okay so I got denied my live audition to San Francisco conservatory.

I feel sooooooo salty!!!

Bummer.

Their loss, though.