Pouncey twins support Hernandez

[SteelerOfDeVille]

Fixing me is always the start of solving any problem.

Why do i now have an image of Ronald McDonald with a Jerry Curl and a white glove...
mj-274.jpg

[fordfixer]

Unintentional Drowning: Get the Factshttp://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html



How big is the problem?
Who is most at risk?
What factors influence drowning risk?
What has research found?
Tips to help you stay safe in the water
More information
References
Overview
Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.1


How big is the problem?
From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2
About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.2 For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1
More than 50% of drowning victims treated in emergency departments (EDs) require hospitalization or transfer for further care (compared with a hospitalization rate of about 6% for all unintentional injuries).1,2 These nonfatal drowning injuries can cause severe brain damage that may result in long-term disabilities such as memory problems, learning disabilities, and permanent loss of basic functioning (e.g., permanent vegetative state).3,4
Who is most at risk?
Males: Nearly 80% of people who die from drowning are male.2
Children: Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools.2 Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects).1 Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes.1
Minorities: Between 2005 and 2009, the fatal unintentional drowning rate for African Americans was significantly higher than that of whites across all ages.2 The disparity is widest among children 5-14 years old. The fatal drowning rate of African American children ages 5 to 14 is almost three times that of white children in the same age range.2


Factors such as access to swimming pools, the desire or lack of desire to learn how to swim, and choosing water-related recreational activities may contribute to the racial differences in drowning rates. Available rates are based on population, not on participation. If rates could be determined by actual participation in water-related activities, the disparity in minorities’ drowning rates compared to whites would be much greater

"take pools. If more people have pools, there will be more drownings. In America, we have a lot of guns, so obviously, we'll have more shootings as a result"....

Good point we should outlaw swimming

[flippy]

Guess Mexicans drowning is workboots is the equivalent of TMartin. They get all the media coverage around here, yet it's the little minorities that are the real problem in pools.

It's only a matter of time until the Black Panthers figure this out and put out a bounty on Pool City.

[flippy]

Why do i now have an image of Ronald McDonald with a Jerry Curl and a white glove...
[ATTACH=CONFIG]892[/ATTACH]

That sounds like a Weird Al album.

[Mister Pittsburgh]

[URL]http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/[/URL]

For anyone out there crying 'Justice for Trayvon'.....seems to me that the justice system is in fact very consistent. Here you have a black guy shoot a 16 year old white kid in a near identical situation, but the black guy never got physically touched, never called the cops at all, and shot the kid twice. He was on trial for manslaughter, and like Zimmerman got off. Only difference is you didn't see people running around saying how unfair the system is. Always gotta be the victim.

I actually emailed that link to CNN and Foxnews asking them to do comparison pieces on the two incidents. CNN gave me an autorespond message saying they received it but nothing more. Foxnews didn't respond.

[flippy]

[URL]http://rochester.ynn.com/content/top_stories/490926/jury-finds-roderick-scott-not-guilty/[/URL]

For anyone out there crying 'Justice for Trayvon'.....seems to me that the justice system is in fact very consistent. Here you have a black guy shoot a 16 year old white kid in a near identical situation, but the black guy never got physically touched, never called the cops at all, and shot the kid twice. He was on trial for manslaughter, and like Zimmerman got off. Only difference is you didn't see people running around saying how unfair the system is. Always gotta be the victim.

I actually emailed that link to CNN and Foxnews asking them to do comparison pieces on the two incidents. CNN gave me an autorespond message saying they received it but nothing more. Foxnews didn't respond.

The problem isn't race. It's idiots and guns. The majority of people that want guns to protect themselves are probably the least likely people to be responsible gun owners.

The justice system seems a little messed up in both situations. The guy with the gun started both confrontations. Seems like both kids felt threatened and responded. Then the guy with the gun in both cases got scared and killed the kid. I think they should add some legalese that self defense only applies to the person that didn't start the confrontation. I think both of these killers should have lost their right to protect themselves the moment they were the aggressor and instigated the situation. But that's not the way the law works.

The laws should punish those that start stuff and encourage people not to act like knuckleheads.

[Steelerphile]

For Mister Pittsburgh who believes the justice system is equitable and probably believes white people receive discriminatory treatment and blacks receive preferential treatment. Countless studies have proven blacks are more like to receive harsher sentences for similar crimes as whites and much more like to receive the death penalty for killing a white person as opposed to when a white person kills a black person. Right-wing people always like to cherry-pick one or two examples, but broad expanse of experience shows otherwise. [URL]http://www.alternet.org/story/62838/jena_six_case_shows_black_teens_get_short_end_of_s tick[/URL]
[URL]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty[/URL]

[Chadman]

Unintentional Drowning: Get the Factshttp://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html



How big is the problem?
Who is most at risk?
What factors influence drowning risk?
What has research found?
Tips to help you stay safe in the water
More information
References
Overview
Every day, about ten people die from unintentional drowning. Of these, two are children aged 14 or younger. Drowning ranks fifth among the leading causes of unintentional injury death in the United States.1


How big is the problem?
From 2005-2009, there were an average of 3,533 fatal unintentional drownings (non-boating related) annually in the United States — about ten deaths per day. An additional 347 people died each year from drowning in boating-related incidents.2
About one in five people who die from drowning are children 14 and younger.2 For every child who dies from drowning, another five receive emergency department care for nonfatal submersion injuries.1
More than 50% of drowning victims treated in emergency departments (EDs) require hospitalization or transfer for further care (compared with a hospitalization rate of about 6% for all unintentional injuries).1,2 These nonfatal drowning injuries can cause severe brain damage that may result in long-term disabilities such as memory problems, learning disabilities, and permanent loss of basic functioning (e.g., permanent vegetative state).3,4
Who is most at risk?
Males: Nearly 80% of people who die from drowning are male.2
Children: Children ages 1 to 4 have the highest drowning rates. In 2009, among children 1 to 4 years old who died from an unintentional injury, more than 30% died from drowning.1,2 Among children ages 1 to 4, most drownings occur in home swimming pools.2 Drowning is responsible for more deaths among children 1-4 than any other cause except congenital anomalies (birth defects).1 Among those 1-14, fatal drowning remains the second-leading cause of unintentional injury-related death behind motor vehicle crashes.1
Minorities: Between 2005 and 2009, the fatal unintentional drowning rate for African Americans was significantly higher than that of whites across all ages.2 The disparity is widest among children 5-14 years old. The fatal drowning rate of African American children ages 5 to 14 is almost three times that of white children in the same age range.2


Factors such as access to swimming pools, the desire or lack of desire to learn how to swim, and choosing water-related recreational activities may contribute to the racial differences in drowning rates. Available rates are based on population, not on participation. If rates could be determined by actual participation in water-related activities, the disparity in minorities’ drowning rates compared to whites would be much greater
Good point we should outlaw swimming

The important part to read in that article is the 'unintentional' part.

How many 'intentional' drownings are there compared to 'intentional' shootings? How many 'intentional' motor vehicle deaths?

There will always be unintential fatalities. The key is to remove the factors that help create intentional ones..

[Chadman]

The problem isn't race. It's idiots and guns.

We have ourselves a winner.

[Northern_Blitz]

We have ourselves a winner.

And we can't get rid of idiots...but I'm a Canadian and our laws are likely similar to those in your neck of the woods.

[Vader]

The problem isn't race. It's idiots and guns. The majority of people that want guns to protect themselves are probably the least likely people to be responsible gun owners.

I'd like to see the stats for that. Millions of Americans like myself have guns for protection and have never fired a shot at anyone. If the media didn't blow this out proportion people could have a reasonable conversation about things. Trayvon jumped a guy that had a gun. Maybe he should have thought about that before he hit the guy.

[flippy]

For Mister Pittsburgh who believes the justice system is equitable and probably believes white people receive discriminatory treatment and blacks receive preferential treatment. Countless studies have proven blacks are more like to receive harsher sentences for similar crimes as whites and much more like to receive the death penalty for killing a white person as opposed to when a white person kills a black person. Right-wing people always like to cherry-pick one or two examples, but broad expanse of experience shows otherwise. [URL]http://www.alternet.org/story/62838/jena_six_case_shows_black_teens_get_short_end_of_s tick[/URL]
[URL]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty[/URL]

I've volunteered in many prisons over the years and I have to admit in my own experience, no matter what level prison you are in, the white guys are usually a little scarier than the black dudes in a specific prison. ie. if you're in a medium security prison, odds are the white guy committed a more serious crime to get himself into the same prison as the black guy.

Also not sure if this is a cultural thing or not, but the Hispanic/Mexican guys in prison often seem way nicer and more respectful than the black or white guys.

Of course this is generalizing, but I've met enough prisoners over the years that this is fairly consistent. I really never thought about this before, but these articles kinda make sense from what I've seen firsthand. Of course I don't always know all the details, but I remember this one white guy that raped a child being in a low security prison while a black guy that committed the same crime was in a high security prison. I remember asking about it many years ago and they just told me it often came down to the specifics of a criminal/situation. So I figured there probably was just stuff I didn't know. But these articles make me wonder.

[flippy]

I'd like to see the stats for that. Millions of Americans like myself have guns for protection and have never fired a shot at anyone. If the media didn't blow this out proportion people could have a reasonable conversation about things. Trayvon jumped a guy that had a gun. Maybe he should have thought about that before he hit the guy.

So maybe you don't fall in the idiot category. I'm not really anti-gun as much as I'm anti-idiot. I think you're reading more into this than I was trying to say (writing is not my greatest skill sometimes). I was trying to say that a guy that wants to own a gun is probably more likely to use it faster than a guy that doesn't want to own a gun. Of course the majority of folks aren't gonna use the gun they keep locked in their home.

In this case a guy with a gun pursued the kid. Since he made the first move stalking him, I think the kid had a right to defend himself. Who knows what really happened here. Maybe it should be a crime for any guy carrying a gun to pursue another guy in the first place.

Just a side question - why do people buy guns for protection when Tasers are available and can serve the same purpose without killing someone? I can understand a gun for hunting where the aim is to kill something. But if someone just wants to protect themselves, there's ways to do that so you don't have to kill another person to protect yourself. I'm just curious about the logic.

[Vader]

So maybe you don't fall in the idiot category. I'm not really anti-gun as much as I'm anti-idiot. I think you're reading more into this than I was trying to say (writing is not my greatest skill sometimes). I was trying to say that a guy that wants to own a gun is probably more likely to use it faster than a guy that doesn't want to own a gun. Of course the majority of folks aren't gonna use the gun they keep locked in their home.

In this case a guy with a gun pursued the kid. Since he made the first move stalking him, I think the kid had a right to defend himself. Who knows what really happened here. Maybe it should be a crime for any guy carrying a gun to pursue another guy in the first place.

Just a side question - why do people buy guns for protection when Tasers are available and can serve the same purpose without killing someone? I can understand a gun for hunting where the aim is to kill something. But if someone just wants to protect themselves, there's ways to do that so you don't have to kill another person to protect yourself. I'm just curious about the logic.

I disagree with your assumptions about TM and Zimmer. Zimmer was in contact with 911 and lost sight of TM. The idea that Zimmer started the fight discounts all the evidence. Why would he fist fight a kid when he has a gun? Why does TM have no marks on him? TM told his friend on the phone that he had a creepy ass cracka following him. All the evidence says TM started the fight. Yes, Zimmer made the first move but TM threw the first punch.

As far as tasers go that works great when you are 1 on 1 and you have enough of them to keep the defendant zapped until the cops get there. What do you do if there are 3 guys? You don't have time to do all that. The obligation to keep the criminal alive is on the criminal NOT me. The fact is that with a gun I can make sure I'm safe. I don't have to worry about the guy shaking off a taser in a few minutes and coming after me again. Also a taser has limited range. Do you really think it is safe for a person to get closer to the criminal?

Again, people have the right to have guns and they work great for keeping homes safe. I don't understand why I have to endanger my family to protect the criminal.

[flippy]

I disagree with your assumptions about TM and Zimmer. Zimmer was in contact with 911 and lost sight of TM. The idea that Zimmer started the fight discounts all the evidence. Why would he fist fight a kid when he has a gun? Why does TM have no marks on him? TM told his friend on the phone that he had a creepy ass cracka following him. All the evidence says TM started the fight. Yes, Zimmer made the first move but TM threw the first punch.

As far as tasers go that works great when you are 1 on 1 and you have enough of them to keep the defendant zapped until the cops get there. What do you do if there are 3 guys? You don't have time to do all that. The obligation to keep the criminal alive is on the criminal NOT me. The fact is that with a gun I can make sure I'm safe. I don't have to worry about the guy shaking off a taser in a few minutes and coming after me again. Also a taser has limited range. Do you really think it is safe for a person to get closer to the criminal?

Again, people have the right to have guns and they work great for keeping homes safe. I don't understand why I have to endanger my family to protect the criminal.

My point was if GZ didn't pursue him, none of this happens. I'd say the punch could be considered self defense just as much as GZ's shot being self defense. Pursuing a kid with a gun on you doesn't seem normal/rational to me.

Thanks for explaining the taser vs gun. I never really considered 3 guys attacking me or the taser not being effective enough. You and your family should be safe. But it seems like there should be some way to do so besides shooting someone.