It has been a Federal Felony since the Brady Bill went into effect a long time ago. Thousands of people violate that law every year. To my knowledge NOT ONE has been prosecuted.
As the population increases so does the number of incidents, even if the %age goes down. Back when everyone that could afford it, owned a gun, it wasn't news. With an increase in the population that does not own a gun a market for the news was created. :yeldead:

Oh please. I won't get into it here, but I'm not buying the whole "evolutionary brain" argument. No one has ever seen a normal human brain that didn't have all the parts normal human brains have now.

Gun-related crimes vary a great deal from decade to decade, even though the number of guns around doesn't change so much. Gun crimes went through a massive peak during alcohol prohibition, but by the time life in these United States settled down, they were at a tenth what they were during that period. Then they started upwards again, until they reached a second, nearly identical peak during the "crack epidemic", theoretically a new prohibition period. During the 90s things began to settle again and with the peak in jobs in 1999, gun crimes reached a new low. Since then they have been edging upwards, but are still nowhere near what they were a decade ago.

There is absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that gun crime correlates with the war on drugs. It's so easy to see. As the profit potential for illegal activity rises, so does the number of people who are willing to go to far illegal lengths. Drug lords are running a multi billion dollar industry and it's entirely underground. Guns are how they legislate and control their activity.

No one has ever seen a normal human brain that didn't have all the parts normal human brains have now.

Well, yeah. If any human brain is missing any specific parts, it tends not to be normal. Its rare to hear someone say, "We found a normal human brain that doesn't have a somatasensory cortex."

Makes me wonder what's normal when they can take out one entire half of a brain and still have the patient function "normally"
Wasn't that just separating the functions of the human brain into groups that critter brains can also handle? Nothing evolutionary here folks, just move along. :)

I was watching a show on Discovery channel that didn't have a damn thing to do with origins, but just HAD to make a comment about how it this part evolved over millions of years, then this part started evolving, then this part.

Calling different parts of the brain by different animals is a direct reference to evolutionary thinking, and in turn, to evolution. If you think it doesn't pervade absolutely every otherwise reasonable science, this is a perfect example.

Calling different parts of the brain by different animals is a direct reference to evolutionary thinking, and in turn, to evolution.

Gah. Its simply terminology used to refer to collections of areas of the brain that serve the same purpose, look the same, and are functionally mapped topographically the same between the species. It does not imply evolution.

Evolution is not nearly as controversial as you want to believe. It is the currently accepted theory, and will be treated as if it were fact until something better comes along.

The problem that she has repeatedly demonstrated is an unwillingness or an inability to differentiate between the evolutionary process which has been proven about as thoroughly as can be done, and spontaneous creation.

Evolutionary Process as it relates to the idea of "molecules to man"? Didn't happen.

Mutation/Speciation? Happens all the time. That's science.

But not speciation to the extent of apes-to-man, because the Bible says man was there from the get-go, right?

apes to man is part of molecules to man.

Molecules to man is the theory that all life on the planet started from a primordial soup that no one has ever been able to prove existed, and somehow (no one knows) life started from non-life, and from that bacterial life other life somehow evolves into invertabrates, which somehow become vertebrates, which spontaneously become mammalian, and apes turn into men.

Hope that's somehow clear to you, because I don't understand how a reasonable person is supposed to believe that.

But ignore the rest of the molecules-to-man theory: could speciation of just a primate mammal from one extreme (apes) to another (man) possibly occur, in your mind?