Gunshots rang out once again on a campus in the United States on Wednesday. Students and faculty raced out of harm's way, ducked under furniture, barricaded doors and hid in interior rooms, bathrooms and labs. The short-lived nightmare on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles came one day before Wear Orange: National Gun Violence Awareness Day. Wear Orange was inspired by friends of Hadiya Pendleton, a 15-year-old Chicago high school student killed by gunfire in 2013. The group decided to honor her life by wearing orange the color worn by hunters in the woods to protect themselves and others. While the idea has been embraced by civic organizations, politicians and celebrities, it has been rejected by gun rights advocates. The National Rifle Association has attacked the campaign as "pointless," and said "participating is an easy way of scoring points for being 'socially conscious.'" Here is a look at the unique relationship between Americans and their guns. Any law-abiding citizen in the United States is allowed to own or carry a gun. That right comes from the U.S. Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It says: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The Second Amendment was based partially on English common law, which describes an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state. To purchase a gun in the majority of states, a person needs to be of age, pass the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check and fill out a firearms transaction record. However, background checks are not currently required for private sales, including those conducted at gun shows. Certain people are banned from owning weapons, including convicted criminals, people with mental health illnesses or non-U.S. citizens. But the system has major holes in it. Where was Hidaya Pendleton killed - not enough information - City in Washington - City in California - City in Illinois
City in Illinois

Following up from my recent blog post explaining why dietary supplements offer few benefits for most people, new research has found that people who take a mineral supplement actually consume more minerals from their normal diet than non-supplement users. The notion of the 'worried well' is certainly alive and kicking. Vitamin and mineral supplements are big business. Reported figures in Australia suggest that 27% of women and 15% of men take some form of supplement with vitamin C, B complex, multivitamins, vitamin E and calcium all being popular choices. Contrary to the rationale for needing supplements in the first place, people who take supplements are more likely to be healthier than people who don't take supplements. Supplement users also tend to be leaner, smoke less, exercise more, and eat more fruit and vegetables. While it may seem obvious that people who take supplements likely consume more nutrients from their regular diet to start with, this hasn't been well studied in large population groups. Using data from a nationally representative government health survey, researchers from the United States looked at the mineral intake from food and supplements of over 8000 men and women between 2003 and 2006. The results were clear cut: people taking mineral supplements were consuming more minerals from their normal diet than those who didn't take supplements. The observation was even stronger in women than in men. The eight most popular mineral supplements taken were calcium, iron, magnesium, zinc, phosphorus, copper, potassium and selenium. Proving that it is possible to have too much of a good thing, supplement users were more likely to be exceeding the recommended upper level of intake for magnesium, zinc, iron and calcium. For someone who believes that they are reasonably healthy and are conscious of what they eat most of the time, taking a mineral supplement 'just in case' offers little to no benefit. What did the research participants ingest? - not enough information - fruits - vitamin and mineral supplements - vegetables
vitamin and mineral supplements

Q: The U.S. Congress is one step closer to averting a government shutdown Thursday after the U.S. House easily passed a $1.3 trillion spending plan that would end months of the government operating under short-term spending bills. The measure, approved by a 256-167 vote, now goes to the Senate, which has until midnight Friday to approve it and avert the year's third government closure. The massive bipartisan bill would keep the government funded until the end of September. Lawmakers had just hours to read the nearly 2,200-page bill released Wednesday night. Under Senate rules, a single senator can delay the vote but not stop it entirely. Senator Rand Paul has objected to the short time given to members to read the lengthy legislation. As of Thursday afternoon, the Senate was waiting to see how the vote would proceed, raising the prospect of another brief government shutdown. With midterm elections looming in November, the bill likely marks the final time Capitol Hill will consider major legislation this year. The measure would fulfill President Donald Trump's vow to boost military funding but provides funding for limited parts of his immigration agenda. The bill, which the White House said Trump supports, would give Trump a huge budget increase for the military, including a 2.4 percent pay raise for military personnel. "Today marks the beginning of a new era for the United States military," House Speaker Paul Ryan said in a statement Thursday. "This legislation fulfills our pledge to rebuild the United States military." After extensive negotiations between Republicans and Democrats, the bill also provides $1.6 billion for physical barriers and 150 kilometers (93 miles) of a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border, short of the $25 billion Trump requested for the project he repeatedly touted on the campaign trail while pledging Mexico would pick up the cost. What promise did the president make? - not enough information - an increase in the defense budget - no spending on immigration - a large pay raise for the senate
A: an increase in the defense budget

Q: White House officials on Wednesday laid out plans to send National Guard troops to the United States' southern border with Mexico, as part of President Donald Trump's efforts to confront what he says is a growing problem with illegal immigrants. The decision to deploy the U.S. military to the border represents a major new aspect of Trump's wide-ranging immigration crackdown. But major parts of the move are unclear, including how many troops will be sent, when they will deploy, or what exactly they will do. "It will take time to have the details in place, but we are beginning today and are moving quickly," said Kirstjen Nielsen, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. "We are anxious to have this support." In the U.S., the active duty military is generally restricted from domestic law enforcement functions, which would include apprehending border crossers. However, U.S. presidents have deployed the National Guard to the border to act in support roles. Nielsen said the National Guard troops will help with border surveillance and other "support functions." She declined to say how large the force would be, but she did say it would include "as many (troops) as is needed to fill the gaps today." A senior Trump administration official declined to say whether the National Guard troops will be armed, saying those details are still being worked out. But the official said the force would be effective. "Suffice it to say, for individuals looking to pay a smuggler to get in the United States right now, that would be a very unwise investment," the official said. Trump signed a proclamation authorizing the move Wednesday evening. But states must also approve the decision before deploying their guard members. Trump repeatedly has threatened to deploy the military to help secure the border, especially as a caravan of Central American migrants makes it way north through Mexico, with some headed for the U.S. Why did a senior Trump official claim that it would be an bad investment now for people looking to enter the US to pay a smuggler to gain entry? - because they believe that the National Guard would be effective once at the border - because the troops were authorized to apprehend them - because they would be fired upon - not enough information
A: because they believe that the National Guard would be effective once at the border