Where was God when the shooting started?
The massacre at Virginia Tech -- 33 dead and more than two dozen wounded-- makes the world for now a colder, darker place. And among the prayers rising to heaven -- prayers for healing and prayers for the comfort -- there are surely other prayers, bitter and angry, so desperate that they are virtually incoherent. But the meaning is plain: "Why, God?''
Even those of us removed from the tragedy might ask that question.
It's a legitimate one, and an ancient one.
The problem of evil, as it is called, is really only a problem for believers, for those hold these three statements to be true:
1. God is all-powerful.
2. God is all good.
3. Evil (and pain and suffering) exists.
If God is all powerful, then he could presumably keep us from a madman with guns. If God is all-good, then presumably he would want to keep his children safe from a madman with guns.
And yet the bullets fly, the blood flows and young lives are ended.
There is a specific branch of theology that deals with this thorny issue. It's called theodicy, and the theodicy people are still in business because there is no single solution. And any of the partial solutions leave you in very strange places if you stop with just the one:
"What seems pointless and needless and senseless is all part of God's bigger plans.'' We may not know everything but the death of a child doesn't seem to be the necessary linchpin of God's plan for history. Nor does the Holocaust.
"Suffering deepens our faith.'' Sometimes, maybe, but this kind of Nietzchean Christian mishmash is cold comfort.
"Our free will is so important to God that He will not substitute his will for ours to prevent disaster.'' That did not seem to bother him in the Bible, where God was forever doing miracles no matter what.
All Christians can do is point to the tears of Christ, to his death and resurrection and say that no darkness, no evil can ultimately win out over God's redemptive love.
Is that a thin reed we grasp in our own pain and wonder, or the rock upon which we stand?
Even those of us removed from the tragedy might ask that question.
It's a legitimate one, and an ancient one.
The problem of evil, as it is called, is really only a problem for believers, for those hold these three statements to be true:
1. God is all-powerful.
2. God is all good.
3. Evil (and pain and suffering) exists.
If God is all powerful, then he could presumably keep us from a madman with guns. If God is all-good, then presumably he would want to keep his children safe from a madman with guns.
And yet the bullets fly, the blood flows and young lives are ended.
There is a specific branch of theology that deals with this thorny issue. It's called theodicy, and the theodicy people are still in business because there is no single solution. And any of the partial solutions leave you in very strange places if you stop with just the one:
"What seems pointless and needless and senseless is all part of God's bigger plans.'' We may not know everything but the death of a child doesn't seem to be the necessary linchpin of God's plan for history. Nor does the Holocaust.
"Suffering deepens our faith.'' Sometimes, maybe, but this kind of Nietzchean Christian mishmash is cold comfort.
"Our free will is so important to God that He will not substitute his will for ours to prevent disaster.'' That did not seem to bother him in the Bible, where God was forever doing miracles no matter what.
All Christians can do is point to the tears of Christ, to his death and resurrection and say that no darkness, no evil can ultimately win out over God's redemptive love.
Is that a thin reed we grasp in our own pain and wonder, or the rock upon which we stand?
posted by Michael Riley at 9:50 AM
137 Comments:
a nut is a nut is a nut...even God can't stop a nut hell-bent on accomplishing his "mission"..no matter how much anyone prays..
"All Christians can do is point to the tears of Christ..." As to the thin reed or the rock, I choose neither.
We must have answers to everything, don't we? After all, the media demands it, and the media wants it, like yesterday.
It's human to cry out "why?" but the question for me is rhetorical. If we get so wrapped up in the question as to lose faith, we have defeated ourselves.
On October 16, 1991, in Killeen, Texas, George Hennard entered a Luby's Cafeteria and shot and killed 23 people, wounded 20 others and then killed himself.
Luby's Massacre
Dr. Suzanne Hupp, a young chiropractor, was one of the few survivors of that massacre. There to have lunch with her parents, her folks were not nearly as lucky as was she. As you will hear in the following video, Doctor Hupp watched in horror as this crazed gunman took the lives of her mother and father, as well as the lives of 21 others.
Dr. Suzanne Hupp's Testimony Before The United States Congress (I apologize for the poor quality of this video.)
Dr. Hupp, then a gun owner who lawfully kept a revolver in the glove box of her truck, was nonetheless prohibited, as per the laws of Texas at that time, from carrying that firearm on her person. Dr. Hupp is an ordinary civilian with no military or police training, but who has/had nonetheless received significant training in the defensive use of handguns. That fact notwithstanding, and has Dr. Hupp has stated many times in the years since then, if she had access to her weapon, many lives that were otherwise lost that day would have been saved.
Shortly after the Luby's Massacre, and despite a previous lack of political ambition, Dr. Suzanne Hupp sought and was elected to a seat in the Texas Legislature. Upon taking office, Representative Hupp sponsored legislation which eventually became law and which allowed law-abiding, properly-trained Texans to obtain licenses to carry concealed weapons (CCW licenses).
Like 39 other states in the Union that have done so since 1987, Texas has adopted a "shall issue" approach with respect to the issuance of concealed weapons licenses. Shall issue means that, upon proof of proper training, unless you are prohibited from obtaining a CCW license by virtue of one of the specific reasons spelled out in the statute itself (e.g., a felony conviction, a history of mental illness and/or substance abuse, physical inablility to safely handle a firearm, any domestic violence incidents, dishonorable discharge from the military, etc.), if you apply for a CCW license, the state "shall" (must) issue you that license.
By contrast, in New Jersey, for example, you must first convince your local police chief, the county prosecutor and then a Superior Court Judge that you "need" such a license/permit. Suffice it to say, and other than hunters walking around the woods, virtually no one in New Jersey other than cops or members of the military may lawfully carry firearms outside of their home, place of business or the local gun range. New Jersey's laws with respect to CCW permits are a lot like the rights "guaranteed" under the old Soviet constitution: They exist on paper only.
The CCW law that Doctor and (then) Representative Hupp sponsored remains on the books to this day. Not a single state that has gone "shall issue" (e.g., Pennsylvania) with respect to its CCW laws has ever changed course and gone back to being a "may issue" state (e.g., New Jersey) or a never issue state (e.g., Illinois). On January 1, 2007, Kansas and Nebraska became the 39th and 40th states respectively to adopt the shall issue approach.
Packing.org
Unfortunately for the students of Virgina Tech, Virginia also has similar concealed weapon laws on its books. I say "unfortunately" for one reason: Schools and Universities are one of the few places where concealed weapons license holders may not lawfully carry their weapons. In their desire to create feel-good, "gun-free zones," legislators have created areas where criminals and madmen alike can terrorize their victims with virtual impunity, knowing all too well that gun control laws are only respected by the law-abiding (e.g., CCW license holders). Criminals hell-bent upon evil are not at all deterred by those very same laws. As Dr. Hupp is quick to point out, none of these horrific mass killings that we have seen recently (e.g., Columbine) have ever taken place in anything other than a "gun-free" zone.
Dr. Suzanne Hupp Debates Paul Helmke of The Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence (Monday Night, April 16, 2007 -- This video is about 6.5 minutes in length.)
Incidentally, firearms are used far more often for defensive purposes than they are ever used in the commission of crimes. Indeed, according to at least one study, firearms are used as many as 2 million times a year for defensive purposes. Please see:
Armed Resistance to Crime:
The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun
It is with a sad heart that I note, and as per The Asbury Park Press, that a resident of my own hometown, Middletown, was one of the victims of the Virginia Tech massacre. Please keep Julia Pryde, her family and her loved ones in your prayers.
BREAKING NEWS: Middletown North graduate killed in Virginia Tech shooting
MR wrote:
"2. God is all good."
Why do people cling to this idea? Reading the Bible without the blinders of "feel-good" expectations can only yield one answer: God is a horrendous SOB bent on torturing, maiming and killing people for his own pleasure. So why would anyone wonder why such things as this mass murder happen?
I note with sad irony that papinian, who alleges to be a religious person, has taken the opportunity to politicize what Michael Riley had intended to be a discussion about God. Apparently, papinian feels that a discussion of God is secondary in importance to gun issues at a time like this. So who's surprised?
"God is a horrendous SOB bent on torturing, maiming and killing people for his own pleasure." -- Ray
Ray, I will keep you in my prayers.
papinian wrote:
"Schools and Universities are one of the few places where concealed weapons license holders may not lawfully carry their weapons."
And rightly so. Would you really advocate putting guns in the hands of college students? Given their propensity for drinking and getting into fights don't you think we'd see incidents like the VT massacre virtually every day of the year on every campus in the U.S.? Could you imagine a bunch of rowdy, drunk, gun-carrying college students at a college football or basketball game? That would be insane. Only gun-obsessed wackos could ever come up the idea of giving college students guns and allowing them to take them onto campus.
papinian wrote:
"Ray, I will keep you in my prayers."
Why bother? If he gets the urge to torture or kill me your puny prayers won't dissuade him.
I agree with ray about papinian's off-kilter views (once again)- so according to your theory paps, let college kids , hey and 18 year old high school students, too roam around campuses , libraries and student centers and dorms with weapons of mass destruction (guns)in case the occcasional madman (very miniscule percentage of all mankind)happens on the scene...more college students die from alcohol/drug-related incidents than any other type of violent crimes combined, so as ray also asked, why enable those so-inclined to impair their judgment with substance abuse with a gun to cause even more harm against each other? Can you imagine a stadium full of students at a large sporting event brandishing guns - and they've been drinking all day/night - and they lose? Talk about a campus massacre...papinian's vigilante mentality and some of his writings and rantings on this blog are eerily similar to that of the VT gunman Mr. Cho...I wish we knew pap's ral identity so we could proprerly warn the authorities &community at large...at least the Asbury Press now has an archive of his bizarre blogs..I hope they (the AP ,that is, also has a metal detector for wacky visitors)ray, you know who I am (I have sided with your opinions in past)but I am afraid to sign off my regular blog name because I am afraid he (papinian)may harbor ill-will against me and I am certain he possesses many weapons of mass destruction (commonly known as guns) and seems to have lots of time on his hands to track me down somehow...fair warning to all about him though... look for the fella with the camouflage overalls/hat and prob cami-covered Bible, too..
I have a question...this mass murderer sent some form of communication (video??) to NBC. It's on the internet. Are they going to play it?? Why glorify this person. He did an awful thing. Why "look into the mind of serial killer"?? I could not care less and am angered that NBC may have bought into this garbage.
Showing the video to the public doesn't amount to glorifying the guy any more than reading Hitler's Mein Kampf glorifies Hitler. When a tragedy like this occurs we all suffer and we all want/need to know why it happened. Showing the video would be for us, not Cho.
scared fellow blogger wrote:
"I am afraid to sign off my regular blog name because I am afraid he (papinian)may harbor ill-will against me and I am certain he possesses many weapons of mass destruction (commonly known as guns) and seems to have lots of time on his hands to track me down somehow..."
He's probably loading his prayer gun right now and asking God to hurl some lightning bolts your way. Barring success with that (as I expect) he'll load up his Glock...
another maniac's manifesto..it at least should have waited to be aired by NBC until all victims buried next week out of respect for the victims' families..but gotta get those ratings or God forbid, have it leaked to smokinggun.com...
"Would you really advocate putting guns in the hands of college students?" -- Ray
I support giving CCW license holders the option to lawfully carry concealed handguns on their person whilst they are on they are on a college campus.
You might be interested to learn that one must be at least 21 years-old in order to lawfully purchase a handgun or to obtain a Virginia CCW license. 21 is also the same age at which one can become a cop or an officer in the US military. I have no problem treating properly-trained, CCW license holders like the adults that they are. Moreover, I am at a loss as to why you would. If Julia Pryde, a 23 year-old graduate student, had one of these in the purse or backpack that she was carrying to class, things might have turned out differently for her and all too many others that were murdered this week at Virginia Tech. If you doubt that, just ask the law students at The Appalachian School of Law what they think of their fellow students carrying guns on campus:
Media Ignore Fact That Gun Owners Stopped School Shooter
Or you could talk to Joel Myrick and the parents of the students at Pearl Junior High:
When Heroes are Outlawed:
How Joel Myrick Saved Lives by Breaking the Law
"He's probably loading his prayer gun right now and asking God to hurl some lightning bolts your way. Barring success with that (as I expect) he'll load up his Glock." -- Ray
My Rosary beads are the most powerful weapon that I own, Ray.
“The Holy Rosary is a powerful weapon."
Good luck with your Bible and rosary beads papinian/wacky anon -obviously they are your weapons of mass destruction when you use them to advance your political views and to further spread your hatred and bigoted views aagainst anyone who is not Catholic...at least your version of one..
you ask: where was God that day? apparently he tied one on the night before and overslept for his first and second period classes...
"Good luck with your Bible and rosary beads papinian/wacky anon -obviously they are your weapons of mass destruction when you use them to advance your political views and to further spread your hatred and bigoted views aagainst [sic] anyone who is not Catholic...at least your version of one." -- DG
I see. A Bible and some Rosary Beads constitute "weapons of mass destruction." Thanks for clearing that up for us, DG. By the way, where were you when Donald Rumsfeld needed you most?
See there, Bush & Blair-bashers: As per DG, we didn't invade Iraq under the pretense of finding chemical and biological weapons that are capable of killing thousands if not millions. We were really looking for Bibles and Rosary Beads, particularly those in the hands of those diabolic Catholics that have the nerve and unmitigated gall to actually be proud to be members of the church that Jesus Christ himself founded. (Matthew 16:18-19)
DG, I think you missed your calling. You could be a spin doctor for the Pentagon. Accordingly, you might want to fax your résumé to 703-697-3501. I suspect the Pentagon Press Office could use someone with your obvious talents.
When contacting the Pentagon, you might want to consider supplying them with a sample of your writing abilities. I, for one, have always been fond of this particular work of yours:
"For the record..I think you've had many one night stands..with your right hand (or are you a southpaw?...did Jesus masturbate? is that in your Bible and is it a sin? 'do unto others as you'd do unto yourself'..is that it?" -- DG (Remarks made by DG on 11 April 2007 at 11:11 PM on this very blog site)
And to think, the Pulitzer folks have not yet called you. Is there any justice in this world?
United States Department of Defense
Incidentally, does my faith really affect the quality of your life all that much? Considering that I have, to date, largely ignored you in the same way that one would ignore the village idiot, you might want to consider why it is that I upset you so. Is your own faith that weak? Are you that insecure?
"I am afraid he (papinian)may harbor ill-will against me and I am certain he possesses many weapons of mass destruction (commonly known as guns) and seems to have lots of time on his hands to track me down somehow...fair warning to all about him though... look for the fella with the camouflage overalls/hat and prob cami-covered Bible, too." -- Fellow Scared Blogger (AKA DG)
And one final note: If either you or your alter-ego ("Fellow Scared Blogger") are really that frightened, then the number you should immediately call is 9-1-1. Please do tell the police precisely why it is that you are so afraid. I suspect that the police that will be duty-bound to investigate your claims will, at the end of the day, view you to be as nutty as do the rest of us. That said, good luck. I will keep you in my prayers as well.
As has been pointed out previously on this thread, Americans use firearms for defensive and lawful purposes far more often than those weapons are ever used in the commission of crimes. (In the parlance of criminologists, sociologists and others alike, the term "DGU" refers to "Defensive Gun Usages.")
The National Rifle Association (NRA) has been documenting various press accounts of DGUs for many decades now. Indeed, the NRA documents many press accounts of those DGUs on its web site. If one is interested in seeing just how often and just how common it is that ordinary citizens use their firearms to save lives -- and in the vast majority of cases, the weapon is never discharged but merely brandished -- please feel free to search the following database:
Search the Armed Citizen Archives
Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC (Right to Carry) at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 30-Year Low
papinian wrote:
"I support giving CCW license holders the option to lawfully carry concealed handguns on their person whilst they are on they are on a college campus."
Well, there you have it. Papinian thinks it's okay to mix guns and alcohol. And like the other wacko gun nuts, he thinks the solution to a problem is to insert more of what caused the problem. Whew! By his reasoning, the solution to the problem of excessive alcohol use on campus would be to let the students have more alcohol!
But now he's got me wondering: Maybe arming the students and training them would constitute the "well-armed militia" that the Second Amendment mentions but which gun advocates always seem to ignore.
"If Julia Pryde, a 23 year-old graduate student, had one of these in the purse or backpack that she was carrying to class, things might have turned out differently.."
But why stop there? Why not let them carry assault weapons, too? How about a few grenades? A show of force like that would discourage any such incident in the future, eh?
"My Rosary beads are the most powerful weapon that I own, Ray."
Maybe, but you have to get close enough to get them around someone's neck in order to choke them, don't you?
papinian wrote to dg:
"I see. A Bible and some Rosary Beads constitute "weapons of mass destruction."
Don't think so? Go tell that to the people they've killed. Oh, wait, you can't.
papinian wrote:
"If one is interested in seeing just how often and just how common it is that ordinary citizens use their firearms to save lives..."
And from the link": "award-winning survey research shows..."
Yet the link doesn't tell us where to find the survey or anything about it, or who gave the award. Wanna bet it was given by fellow gun nuts... if it exists at all?
papinian wrote:
"Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC (Right to Carry) at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 30-Year Low "
This is an excellent example of spurious correlation. Other things were varying over the same time interval but the NRA fails to take these into account. Instead they leave you with the assumption that gun ownership and crime rate are the only variables here and, worse, that correlation implies causation. A first-year mathematics major could take this nonsensical garbage apart.
For example, crime rates (including violent crime) are known to be tied to poverty rates and other social variables. During the Clinton administration, poverty rates went down and much federal money was spent on local police forces -- and violent crime rates went down. Since Bush took over poverty rates have gone up and violent crime rates have gone up, too. Gun ownership rates have nothing to do with any of this. To argue that it does is to pull a statistical sleight-of-hand on every unsuspecting person who doesn't know much about statistics.
sorry to disappoint you papinian, but I am not "scared blogger"..I do not need to hide behind fake blog names (like others)..I am proud to always use my original and only blog name..I have nothing to hide..Cho Seung-Hui or Seung-Hui Cho ( the correct order) used his Catholic beliefs to justify his actions, too...I know you believe strongly in your religion but just take a breath and relax and count to 10 before you reach for your weapon(s)...if some other imposter is trying to use my blog ideas or name then that's too bad, but a bit flattering too ..I have blogged as DG since day 1 of this blog and plan to continue w/out hiding behind a fake blog...I do apologize though if I have falsely accused you of being the other anonymous ..many of us have come to call "wacky anon" because god knows, papinian's warped views are enough to handle, but it is worse to think there may be someone else with your exact views, too...you don't upset me,you just make me want to throw up in my mouth with many of your comments.. but obviously Mr. Riley's and Ray's views and apparently mine (dg) do, along with just about everything else having to do with anti-gun, anti-catholic views..for the record, I am anti-gun but not anti-Catholic or any other religion ,whereas you are obviously anti-every religion other than Catholic...take a blog poll..who is "nuttier"? I believe you win that one - hands down...as far as a Pulitzer Prize, I never purported to be a pro writer (as obviously you and ray are)but just a blogger with opinions responding to fellow bloggers' comments (that's what a blog is for - not to further one's personal manifesto as you do)..if you are not posing as "wacky" anon as well, then I will cut you some slack and speak only to "papinian's" views...so from now on, I will assume you are blogging only as papinian and I can assure you I am only blogging as "dg" and no other blog name as you've falsely accused me of being a "scared blogger"...
Ray and DG,
This has become pretty ridiculous. I am a very liberal, non-Catholic (indeed, non-religious) individual. Although I do support reasonable gun ownership, I have agreed with the two of you on many points and do not feel like this is the proper venue to voice my gun advocacy.
THAT SAID, however,
in this particular instance, I feel the two of you are simply lashing out against papinian because his views are more conservative than yours. Both of you act as if you are the minority voice. Papinian as well as the two of you both seem to like being the victims.
On this issue, I have to side with Papinian and have to say (for constructive purposes) that the strength of your arguments (DG and Ray) are dwindling as of late.
That man was a Catholic (Cho)? Maybe he was brought up in the faith, but the man was a terrorist and an extremist who felt the need to punish because of some warped sense of ...what...righteousness.
This blog was about "where was God" so this fight about guns within this strand might be pertinent, but agenda pushing amongst this tradegy may be effective, in my opinion.
I'm just so sad about what happened. Today on the front page were all those young faces, and some professors, all smiling and posed with so much to offer the world, and they're senselessly gone. At this point, seraching for answers, and delving into the mind of the lost is not my first priority. I pray. I keep thinking about the sweet and simple and God fearing Amish too - how they handled it.
"tragedy" (sp).
And I meant to say "not effective" - I need to spell check more.
"Well, there you have it. Papinian thinks it's okay to mix guns and alcohol." -- Ray
There's that scatterbrained logic of Ray's that we've all come to know and love. Tell me, Ray, if I think it's okay for the state to give a 21 year-old college student a drivers license, does that mean that I also support drunk driving?
"But now he's got me wondering: Maybe arming the students and training them would constitute the 'well-armed militia' that the Second Amendment mentions but which gun advocates always seem to ignore." -- Ray
I see. So it is the gun advocates that ignore the Second Amendment in a way that a constitutional scholar such as yourself does not? Is that what you're saying, Ray?
Psst ... You might want to actually read the Second Amendment before writing about it, Ray. For example, the Second Amendment mentions "a well-regulated militia." It most certainly does not mention "a well-armed militia."
"'And from the link': 'award-winning survey research shows...'" -- Ray
That research by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz to which you refer shows that firearms are used defensively (DGUs) approximately 2 million to 2.5 million times a year in the United States. In other words, firearms are used far more often for defensive purposes than they are ever used in the commission of crimes.
"Yet the link doesn't tell us where to find the survey or anything about it, or who gave the award. Wanna bet it was given by fellow gun nuts... if it exists at all?" -- Ray
The NRA link to which you refer should have mentioned the study by name. For that I apologize.
That said, you can find a synopsis of that Kleck & Mertz article, Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1
Or, if you bothered to pay attention, you could have read it 4 days ago simply by clicking on the link I provided in the first post that I made on this thread. If you're still interested, I can get back to you on who gave out the awards.
Incidentally, the United States Department of Justice also conducted a similar study in 1994. Using a smaller sample than did Kleck and Mertz, the DOJ determined that there are some 1.5 million DGUs (defensive gun usages) in the United States each year. Please see:
Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
But I imagine you'll tell us, Ray, that we should discount this research as well. Heaven knows that in 1994, Bill Clinton, Janet Reno and the United States Department of Justice itself were all just another bunch of "gun nuts," right?
"This is an excellent example of spurious correlation. Other things were varying over the same time interval but the NRA fails to take these into account. Instead they leave you with the assumption that gun ownership and crime rate are the only variables here and, worse, that correlation implies causation. A first-year mathematics major could take this nonsensical garbage apart." -- Ray
No correlation was drawn or even implied, Ray, and certainly no one other than yourself mentioned the word "causation." The NRA article simply mentioned facts that they then documented with various footnotes. It was you, in your desire to set up a rhetorical straw man that you could then immediately tear down, that used those terms and made the assumptions that you did. But such is life in Blogville, right?
That said, I agree that there are a number of factors not mentioned in the NRA article that correlate with crime rates. The number of police on the streets, incarceration rates, lengths of sentences imposed, the rates at which children are reared in single-parent homes, etc. are all factors that directly impact overall crime rates. Indeed there are so many factors that correlate with crime rates that I imagine one would be hard pressed to mention all or even most of them in a single book, much less an article appearing in an academic journal.
One such important factor that affects crime rates -- and one that, to be sure, the gun grabbers are all too quick to ignore -- is the number of law-abiding citizens in a given community that have concealed weapons permits or licenses. As Professor John Lott posits in his book, More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, "as more people obtain [CCW] permits, there is a greater decline in violent crime rates." Please see:
An Interview With Professor John Lott
You might be interested to learn, Ray, that Professor John Lott is a rather well respected academic. For years he taught at the University of Chicago's School of Law before accepting a teaching position at Yale University. (He may still be at Yale, but I don't know that for certain.) Professor Lott has a well-earned reputation for being meticulous in his research and in his documentation. Moreover, he is not at all reluctant to debate those who disagree with him. In short, John Lott is no "first year mathematics major."
Professor John Lott's Web Site
Does owning or carrying guns deter violent crime?: A discussion on video with Professor John R. Lott,Jr., Yale Law School; with comments by Carl Moody, Department of Economics, College of William & Mary; and William Vogt, Department of Economics, Carnegie Mellon University. (Sponsored The Cato Institute)
"[F]or the record, I am anti-gun but not anti-Catholic or any other religion[;] whereas you are obviously anti-every religion other than Catholic." -- DG
DG, I am Catholic for a reason -- many reasons, actually. Truth be told, I imagine I could write all day on my faith and why I am a Catholic. That said, I'll quote Dave Armstrong, a fellow Catholic, who said the following:
"I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to
submit." Please see:
150 Reason Why I Am Catholic (Featuring 300 Biblical Evidences Favoring Catholicism)
That I am Catholic for many reasons in no implies that I am "anti-other religions" -- and that fact won't be changed no matter how often you call me a bigot. You might be interested to learn that the Catholic Church is rather clear in holding that non-Catholic Christians should be viewed by Catholics as "our brothers and sisters in Christ." Please see:
Paragraph #1271 of The Catechism Of The Catholic Church (CCC)
Indeed, and with respect to persons of all faiths (or even no faith), The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is possible. Please see Paragraphs # 846 & 847 of the CCC:
CCC, # 846 & 847
It is for that reason alone (e.g., the "ignorance clause" mentioned above in CCC 846 & 847) that I someday hope to see you, Reverend Riley and even Crazy Ray in Heaven someday. (I'd mention my friend and fellow Catholic, Margaret, but everyone knows she is already on the fast-track to sainthood.) :-)
That said, I should point out, and as Homer and Bart Simpson quickly learned, Catholic Heaven rocks whereas Protestant Heaven is, well, kind of bland. Who knows? Maybe you can get a visa to visit Catholic Heaven someday. Smile and please see:
Simpsons: Protestant v. Catholic Heaven
No thanks Papinian; unlike your elitist, arrogant Catholic views, I believe there is one Heaven for all..once again your bigotry towards other religions shows itself again -assuming there are 2 Heavens, and that yours is "better" because it is "Catholic"...puhleez..you may not see yourself as a bigot or prejudiced against non-Cathoilc religions , but you are..and as far as you saying you could write about why you are a Catholic all day..you already do that on this blog (and others I am sure)..you assume a lot to believe you will be meeting me, Ray and Margaret in "your" Heaven..pray you will reach any Heaven at all..so now that the Pope has decreed all previously unbaptised dead babies will leave "limbo" and go to Heaven, does that mean that all those poor babies in limbo these hundreds and hundreds of years will all suddenly be making a mass exodus from limbo into Catholic Heaven...quite a traffic jam..it is so absurd..at least in non-Catholic religions all dead babies go to Heaven-one Heaven...so, do the Catholics believe there is one Catholic Hell and one Protestant Hell,too...I hope there is so all those child -molesting Catholic priests, bishops and other criminal clerics do not "get us" in the "other" Heaven...I hope Megan's Law is enforced in Heaven, too..it is all so preposterous and you and your ilk are just as brainwashed as the David Koresh Waco and Jim Jones koolaid followers...
"I note with sad irony that papinian, who alleges to be a religious person, has taken the opportunity to politicize what Michael Riley had intended to be a discussion about God. Apparently, papinian feels that a discussion of God is secondary in importance to gun issues at a time like this. So who's surprised?" -- Ray
"This blog was about "where was God" so this fight about guns within this strand might be pertinent, but agenda pushing amongst this tragedy may not be effective, in my opinion." -- Margaret
Good afternoon, Margaret. I have a joke for you:
There was a very religious man named Pat Scire, who lived near the Navesink River. One day, the river rose over the banks and flooded the town, and Pat was forced to climb onto his porch roof. While sitting there, a man in a boat came along and told Pat to get in the boat with him.
Pat said, "No, that's okay. God will take care of me."
So, the man in the boat drove off.
The water rose higher, so Pat climbed onto his roof. At that time, another boat came along, and the person in that one told Pat to get in.
Pat replied, "No, that's okay. God will take care of me."
The person in the boat then left.
The water rose even more, and Pat climbed onto his chimney. A helicopter came along and lowered a ladder for him. The woman in the helicopter told Pat to climb up the ladder and get in.
Pat said, "That's okay."
The woman said, "Are you sure?"
Pat replied, "Yeah, I'm sure. God will take care of me."
Finally, the water rose too high and Pat drowned. Pat got to Heaven and was face-to-face with God.
Pat said to God, "You told me that you would take care of me! What happened?"
God replied, "Well, I sent you two boats and a helicopter. What else did you want?"
"Where was God?" A great question indeed! I imagine there are no shortage of cancer survivors that may have asked themselves that very same question. Thankfully, I have never had to face cancer, but I imagine those who have beat it eventually came to find God in the hands and minds of those doctors and nurses that treated them. They may have also found God in the drugs they took and in the brutal treatments they endured. Isn't that right, Margaret? ;-)
I suppose the point I am trying to make is that, and unlike that idiot "Pat" mentioned in the joke above, we all use the tools that God gives us -- or at least we should.
It's for that reason that I think a discussion involving concealed weapons licenses, guns, and where and under what circumstances those guns may be lawfully carried is entirely apropos for this thread.
One would be foolish not to acknowledge that there are a number of ways to effectively fight crime. (Fighting poverty, for example, is a great place to start. Encouraging people not to have children out of wedlock is another. There are many others.) That said, and while certainly no panacea in and of itself, allowing properly-trained, law-abiding citizens the lawful opportunity to carry concealed weapons on their persons is precisely one of the "tools" that we as a society have at our disposal when fighting crime.
I think that if you are a law-abiding citizen, over 21 and are willing to undergo firearms training that includes learning what the law is insofar as the use of deadly force is concerned, then the the Almighty State shouldn't stand in your way should you choose to arm yourself in a desire to protect yourself and your family against the criminals that are certainly out there. I believe that society on the whole would be a safer, better place if more law-abiding, properly-licensed citizens started carrying concealed firearms.
I say that because I believe that effective self-defense is a basic and fundamental human right. I say that because I know that criminals prefer unarmed victims. I say that because I know, without having to consult any scholarly, statistic-laden studies that if criminals hellbent on evil have to stop and ask themselves whether they are going to face a potential victim that is armed, then there will be less crime. I say that because I know that cops, as honorable and as dedicated as they may be, are nonetheless rarely there when violence occurs, but rather are there to pick up the pieces/bodies afterwards and investigate what happened. I say that because I know that criminals don't give a damn how many gun control laws are on the books; all too many of them will carry weapons when it suits their purpose, and regardless of what the law says. I say that because I am willing, much like 40 other states in the Union that have adopted the "shall issue" approach with respect to issuing CCW licenses, to treat you like an adult and not like a child. I am willing to allow you to carry concealed firearms on your person if so desire, while at the same time holding you accountable for your actions.
By contrast, the Sarah Bradys and gun-grabbers of this world would deny you the right to effectively defend yourself when you or your family are faced with deadly force. Quite frankly, and while paying lip service to the notion that they speak for the common man, they would, through sheer force of law, deny that same common man the very means -- the tools, if you will -- of effectively defending himself and his family. In the name of civility of all things, they would relegate criminals and their victims alike to the rules of the jungle: May the strongest survive.
That may be fine for the Rays of this world, but it sure doesn't sit well with me. I hope it doesn't sit well with you either.
End of Homily.
All: "We believe in one God ..." :-)
papinian, you most certainly did say that you would like to see guns in the hands of college students -- in spite of what we know about how they drink and fight too much.
And you haven't responded to what I said about the second amendment's mention of a well-regulated militia. You merely used the Supreme Court to avoid the question.
Okay, let's see what papinian's source gives us:
In the conclusion section:
"The NSPOFbased estimate of millions of DGUs [defensive gun uses] each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the
DGU estimates are not informative in this regard."
More:
"In 1994, 44 million Americans
owned 192 million firearms, 65
million of which were handguns.
Although there were enough guns
to have provided every U.S. adult
with one, only 25 percent of adults
actually owned firearms.."
This is why the NRA's and papinian's argument is absurd. If only 25% of Americans own guns, were there really millions of DGUs those 25% would have to use their guns at phenomenal rates!
The problem here is that this survey comes from self-reporting over the phone by the gun owners. There is no way to verify the claims as there are no such numbers of police reports of incidents to back them up. Absurdly, many respondents reported multiple incidents (can you say "intentionally skewing the results?) and one woman reported using her gun in a DGU 52 times! Does this begin to tell you how unreliable this survey is?
Even more:
"It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS."
Did you get that?
And right from the "Issues and Findings" section, at the FRONT of the document:
"Evidence suggests that this survey and others like it overestimate the frequency with which firearms were used by private citizens to defend against criminal attack."
Try reading the document before you post it, okay?
papionian wrote:
"No correlation was drawn or even implied, Ray, and certainly no one other than yourself mentioned the word "causation." The NRA article simply mentioned facts that they then documented with various footnotes.."
Yes, it was. To place statistics side-by-side and to not infer a relationship between them would be meaningless. The implication was that there is a correlation between two statistics and that this demonstrated a causal relationship. If not, what was the point of showing them in the first place? Sorry, but no matter how you slice it, the argument that there is a causal relationship between gun ownership and crime rate is a fantasy.
this guy wrote:
"THAT SAID, however,
in this particular instance, I feel the two of you are simply lashing out against papinian because his views are more conservative than yours."
Now read what I wrote to papinian regarding his source about DGUs (defensive gun uses) and see if you still think the same.
papinian wrote:
"DG, I am Catholic for a reason -- many reasons, actually. Truth be told, I imagine I could write all day on my faith and why I am a Catholic."
Try being honest with yourself, pappy. You're a Catholic because you were raised a Catholic. Others have their particular religions because they were raised that way, too. Anything you conjure up as to why you have any particular religion is simply rationalization after the fact. It's just something to stroke yourself with.
Gee, papinian I wonder if your almighty ruler the Pope approves of guns or any weapons of mass destruction, especially for his Catholic followers to tote and use? I am sure you will pull out some bizarre study or poll out of your a** to fit conveniently into your narrow beliefs...now which Bible verse or Commandment will you cite this time? Why didn't the previous Pope's Swiss Guard blow away his assassin-to-be when they had the chance? Would you have killed him if you were in Saint Peter's square that day armed with your glock to protect your leader and others in danger? WWJD?
Ray, I read your posts and I very much look forward to responding to them sometime tomorrow. Right now, however, my wife and I are in the middle of hosting a backyard birthday party for an 8 year-old.
That said, and in the meantime, I'll thank you to take a look at this post in which you wrote:
"And you haven't responded to what I said about the second amendment's mention of a well-regulated militia. You merely used the Supreme Court to avoid the question." -- Ray on 21 April 2007 @ 11:26 PM
Unless I am missing something, I don't think I mentioned the Supreme Court on this thread at all. Nor, for that matter, did I see a question from you or anyone else that involved the Second Amendment. Am I missing something? What was the question?
Thanks for your patience.
Papinian, Your references to the Navesink river, cancer survivors and St Mary's Church lead me to believe you think you know me. It may be coincidence, but you're freaking me out. I may have said something about cancer once, but not of the other two. Please refrain...
Margaret
"Papinian, Your references to the Navesink river, cancer survivors and St Mary's Church lead me to believe you think you know me. It may be coincidence, but you're freaking me out. I may have said something about cancer once, but not of the other two. Please refrain..." -- Margaret
Psst .... Don't tell anyone, Margaret, but the Vatican's Super Computers keep track of EVERYONE online. (If you doubt me, just ask Jack Chick, Ian Paisley, and our own resident, anti-Catholic bigot, DG, etc.)
Those smart SOBs, particularly DG, are almost onto us. Again, Shhhhhh!! With the help of Mary and the Pope -- but, of course, not Jesus -- in a couple of more weeks we will own the world's gold and oil supplies and, thus, the Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike will all become our slaves. "All glory to the human Pope but never to God!"
That said, I can't believe you didn't get the top-secret memo, Margaret! Sheesh!
Mental Patient Theater: Jack Chick, DG's Mentor, Answers The Question As To Whether Catholics Are Really Christians
"so, do the Catholics believe there is one Catholic Hell and one Protestant Hell,too...I hope there is so all those child-molesting Catholic priests, bishops and other criminal clerics do not "get us" in the "other" Heaven...I hope Megan's Law is enforced in Heaven, too.." -- DG
DG, your parents and the public school district that you attended raped you in a way far worse than any sex offender ever could. Again, my prayers are with you.
Incidentally, please consider the product offered on the following link:
Hooked On Phonics
Remember: Reading is fun!
Margaret, when I posted my original blog entry "a nut is a nut is a nut", I was referring to Cho the VTech Catholic fanatic on a rampage..it seems to apply to Papinian/not-so-anon catholic/wacky anon, too..his rampages written on this blog alone are enough to send chills up most people's spines..he definitely does seem to know a lot of personal info about you, Margaret and I'd look twice over my shoulder, too..maybe he's a fellow parishioner -even more disturbing..Ray, which is more alarming? Papinian's "stalker" mentality of Margaret's personal info, his fanatical /political views masked behind his Catholic beliefs, or the fact that he mentioned he had an 8-yr. old child in his yard recently? (hopefully, not his own- poor soul..another vessel for his brainwashed teachings... apparently taught by his own folks..or Catholic school upbringing (I"ll take my public school education anyday - we even had Jews, Muslims and non-Catholics as classmates -can you imagine?)...hopefully, this child will not be receiving a graduation gift one day of Papa Papinian's "special" version of the Bible with all his footnotes along with a matching handgun for college...I think you croosed the line with Margaret, Papinian and maybe it's time for all of us to refrain from responding to your creepy postings on this blogsite..you, without a forum..that may hit you where it hurts the most..and I, for one, do not want to read in the Press one day of another gun-wielding religious zealot with a score to "even" and feel responsible for even furthering your causes here...God knows, the Press already has a massive archive of your "manifesto" and enough already! Anyone else on board to boycott this nut by not responding to him anymore? I am first to sign up...1..DG (for the record again, I am not, nor ever was "scared blogger" as Papinian tried to claim I was hiding behind a fake blog name..now that I have seen his somewhat personal references to fellow blogger Margaret, I can see why there might be one, though)..and as far as hiding behind fake blog names, I think there are at least 3 he has, and continues to use on this blogsite...may I suggest another blog name for him -"pap-smear"...my blog responses henceforth will be to Mr. Riley and normal, fellow bloggers (other than papinian, et al)...Ciao Papinian and before you think of harming anyone else...count to 10 (commandments), pray and then if you need to still harm anyone...open your gun cabinet and harm...yourself only! ciao paps...
DG, Thank you for your post.
I reiterate that this blog was about "where was God?" It wasn't about a right to bear arms, or the belief that we shouldn't. We could argue that one till we're blue in the face.
We know this much. Cho was messed up. He had years of anger brewing inside him. He also had a mistaken sense that he had the right to punish for wrongs that may have been part of his warped sense of righteousness.
I don't think you and Ray are nuts. I appreciate open dialog.
In regard to my last post...I don't know. Hoping I'm wrong. And I'll be more careful what I say.
margaret wrote:
"I reiterate that this blog was about "where was God?" It wasn't about a right to bear arms, or the belief that we shouldn't."
Thank papinian for that. He thought it was more important to discuss guns than to discuss God. Strange for such a hyper-religious person, isn't it?
dg wrote:
"Ray, which is more alarming? Papinian's "stalker" mentality of Margaret's personal info, his fanatical /political views masked behind his Catholic beliefs, or the fact that he mentioned he had an 8-yr. old child in his yard recently?"
All of the above.
dg wrote:
"may I suggest another blog name for him -"pap-smear"..."
::grin:: I thought of that, too. Or perhaps Papschmear, the character from one of those Naked Gun movies with Leslie Nielsen.
Ray, the thought of associating papinian with those two words : Naked Gun - I think I just threw up a little in my mouth :}
I think papinian has that effect on a lot of people.
Hey! Where's papinian? He was posting here every day until this past weekend. Now all of a sudden he's gone missing. Could it be that he's embarrassed after having been exposed as a phony when he posted what he thought was an article supporting "defensive gun uses" that turned out to be exactly the opposite?
::gloat mode off::
papinian has also blogged as: farmingdale jim,pap, papist,anonymous,justcatholics huh?,and probably brachimus,seamus,too..
For the record, I didn't post the previous item even though the poster used the same name as mine.
Margaret, papinian due at St.Mary's soon to listen to your new pastor.
"Okay, let's see what papinian's source gives us:
In the conclusion section:
'The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs [defensive gun uses] each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the
DGU estimates are not informative in this regard.'" -- Ray & Ray quoting the NSPOF survey
What you conveniently left out, Ray, was that the NSPOF survey found 1.5 million DGU each year, which is precisely what I claimed this source would say in an earlier post. That the NSPOF / US DOJ under Janet Reno would, after reaching a conclusion that it disliked, then seek to undermine its very own research speaks volumes to inherent dangers of mixing research with politics. Those problems notwithstanding, again, the fact remains that The US Department of Justice found at least 1.5 million DGUs each year in the United States.
"Even more:
'It does not make sense, then, that the NSPOF estimate of the number of rapes in which a woman defended herself with a gun was more than the total number of rapes estimated from NCVS.'
Did you get that?" -- Ray and Ray quoting the NSPOF survey
First of all, the NCVS is also a telephone survey subject to the same false positives that any other survey (e.g., NSPOF) survey is. Why would you accept one as reliable and discount another, if not to reach a political goal?
Secondly, what you left out was even more important than what you quoted. Namely, the NSPOF, much like the Kleck & Gertz survey, used procedures to weed out false positives and establish genuine DGUs. It was only after applying those more restrictive standards (e.g., completely disregarding the woman who claimed to have been raped 52 times) that the NSPOF, again, found 1.5 million DGUs each year. (See page 9 of the NSPOF link I provided.)
In any survey, you run the risk that you are going to come across a nut. For that reason alone, those taking polls and/or surveys make their sample as large as possible so as to get a far more accurate result. In short, large samples render the nuts (false positives) statistically insignificant. To their credit both Kleck & Gertz as well as the NSPOF did just that (the Kleck sample was considerably larger than the one used in the NSPOF survey) and their results attest to the fact that there are anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 million DGUs each year in this country. More importantly, that fact is not changed because the US DOJ, after reaching undesired results in its own research, used rather dubious methods to discredit its own findings.
"Hey! Where's papinian? He was posting here every day until this past weekend. Now all of a sudden he's gone missing. Could it be that he's embarrassed after having been exposed as a phony when he posted what he thought was an article supporting "defensive gun uses" that turned out to be exactly the opposite?" -- Ray
See my post above. Far from being the exact opposite of what I claimed, the links I provided attest to the millions of DGUs that occur each year in this country.
That said, and those links notwithstanding, and as anyone that reads the daily newspaper can attest, many, many lives are saved each year precisely because law-abiding, properly-trained Americans have access to firearms and defend themselves. The difference between Ray and I is that I believe that effective self-defense, particularly when faced with deadly force, is a God-given right. Accordingly, I support the right of those same law-abiding citizens to avail themselves of arms for self-defense purposes if they so choose. Ray, much to his shame, apparently, does not.
Incidentally, Ray, and as much as you would like to think otherwise, my lack of posts in recent weeks have had nothing whatsoever to do with you or anyone else on these boards.
What follows are links to some recent online articles that detail just a few of the many DGUs that have taken place in this country during just the past few days:
Home Invasion Ends In Stabbing & Shoot-out
Maine man detains two alleged burglars
Man shot, killed after entering home
Memphis Police Officer Killed In Home Invasion
Owner shoots man trying to rob store, HPD says
Apparent home invasion results in fatal shooting"
Akron man with concealed gun shoots at robbers
Man shoots threatening moose
Man shoots suspected burglar
Cape Coral couple tries to cope after attack at their home
Man Arrested After Albany Shooting
Shots fired during burglary
Unicoi shooting ruled justifiable
Man fatally shot by bar owner in alleged robbery attempt
One Dead, One Injured, Two on the Run After Convenience Store Robbery
Tucson man won't face charges in death
Police: Clerk Holds Robbery Accomplice At Gunpoint
Pharmacist Wards Off Robber with Gun
E. Main St. shooting
A Kalamazoo man was able to turn an attempted attack around because of his concealed weapons permit
Leave it to papinian to try to resurrect a discredited study. The conclusions are clear, paps. Let's see that quote from the study again:
"The NSPOF based estimate of millions of DGUs [defensive gun uses] each year greatly exaggerates the true number, as do other estimates based on similar surveys. Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the
DGU estimates are not informative in this regard."
What part of this don't you understand? It's over, paps. Your own source mocks you.
Tell that, Ray, to the millions of law-abiding Americans who are alive today because they had access to firearms to defend themselves when faced deadly force.
On April 21, 2007 (11:12 AM), I wrote the following:
"Incidentally, the United States Department of Justice also conducted a similar study in 1994. Using a smaller sample than did Kleck and Gertz, the DOJ determined that there are some 1.5 million DGUs (defensive gun usages) in the United States each year."
I then provided a link to the NSPOF study referenced above. I'll provide it again here:
Guns In America: National Survey On Private Ownership and Use of Firearms
On Page 9 of the link provided above, which Ray also quotes, you will see the following:
"A somewhat more conservative NSPOF estimate is shown in the column of Exhibit 7 that reflects the application of the criteria used by Kleck and Gertz to identify "genuine" defensive gun uses ... Applying those restrictions leaves 19 NSPOF respondents (0.8% of the sample), representing 1.5 million defensive users. This estimate is directly comparable to the well known estimate of Kleck & Gertz, shown in the last column of Exhibit 7.
I guess I'll have to post it again:
"Much debated is whether the widespread ownership of firearms deters crime or makes it more deadly—or perhaps both—but the
DGU estimates are not informative in this regard."
And again, this was your own source.
"Tell that, Ray, to the millions of law-abiding Americans who are alive today because they had access to firearms to defend themselves when faced deadly force."
Why don't you tell the millions of law-abiding citizens who were victims of firearms that it was their own fault for not being armed to the teeth? Then tell them that when children are killed by firearms that at least other people are defending themselves with firearms so it's okay.
JMurLP The best blog you have!
zKWEtr Thanks to author.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Please write anything else!
Good job!
Magnific!
Magnific!
Please write anything else!
Thanks to author.
Thanks to author.
u4yd6c write more, thanks.
Hello all!
Hello all!
Magnific!
Magnific!
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Good job!
Please write anything else!
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
Thanks to author.
Thanks to author.
actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
Nice Article.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
Thanks to author.
Build a watch in 179 easy steps - by C. Forsberg.
640K ought to be enough for anybody. - Bill Gates 81
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector.
Hello all!
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Good job!
Energizer Bunny Arrested! Charged with battery.
A lot of people mistake a short memory for a clear conscience.
Clap on! , Clap off! clap@#&$NO CARRIER
When there's a will, I want to be in it.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.
What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?
A lot of people mistake a short memory for a clear conscience.
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
C++ should have been called B
What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
Please write anything else!
Magnific!
Magnific!
Energizer Bunny Arrested! Charged with battery.
Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector.
A flashlight is a case for holding dead batteries.
Good job!
When there's a will, I want to be in it.
All generalizations are false, including this one.
Energizer Bunny Arrested! Charged with battery.
Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!
What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?
640K ought to be enough for anybody. - Bill Gates 81
The gene pool could use a little chlorine.
Build a watch in 179 easy steps - by C. Forsberg.
640K ought to be enough for anybody. - Bill Gates 81
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Thanks to author.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
Nice Article.
What is a free gift ? Aren't all gifts free?
Good job!
Change is inevitable, except from a vending machine.
If ignorance is bliss, you must be orgasmic.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
Post a Comment
<< Home