Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.atheism > #2574662 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-09 13:15 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 129 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.atheism
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-04 12:04 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:07 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-04 22:41 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:03 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:07 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:10 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 07:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-04 23:43 -0800
THE LAST JUDGMENT Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:46 -0800
THE LAST JUDGMENT Madame Curie <donnadenke@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 23:50 -0800
Perhaps a 48 inch oilfield pipe wrench rammed up your ass and out your mouth would help? Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:19 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:41 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:34 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 23:01 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:04 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:12 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:38 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 12:57 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:36 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:42 -0600
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:47 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Sir Gaygory's Owner's Owner 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2019-01-08 14:52 -0600
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:58 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:11 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:17 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:05 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:30 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:33 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 17:09 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 17:42 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:44 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Michael Ejercito" <mejercit@hotmail.com> - 2019-01-09 09:47 -0800
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-10 00:20 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands BeamMeUpScotty <Not-Sure@idiocracy.gov> - 2019-01-10 06:53 -0500
Re: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-11 00:44 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:43 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:14 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:11 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:29 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 16:37 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 12:08 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Max Planck <Melchizedek_KingofSalem@aol.com> - 2019-01-04 23:16 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 03:39 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:35 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-05 02:26 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:17 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:19 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 01:50 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 12:00 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:02 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:16 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:02 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:22 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 13:24 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-08 11:11 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:40 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 07:08 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:03 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 10:33 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:54 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:40 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:56 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:09 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:27 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:02 -0700
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:50 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:21 -0500
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 00:04 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:24 -0800
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-09 00:54 -0500
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000
Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-09 05:46 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:06 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 11:35 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:25 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Antitheism <Alt.Atheism@aol.com> - 2019-01-07 21:39 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-08 04:22 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 13:18 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 22:15 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:16 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 13:41 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:23 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 12:10 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:52 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:21 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:32 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 13:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 14:04 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:37 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:55 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 15:41 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 14:47 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 12:24 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 10:46 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 12:21 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 13:57 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> - 2019-01-05 18:36 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:49 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 14:59 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-05 13:36 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-05 03:15 -0700
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 23:30 -0800
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-08 03:23 -0500
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000
Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands Cloud Hobbit <youngblood2949@gmail.com> - 2019-01-09 13:15 -0800
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ur6ZD.2273$e55.1087@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576639 |
On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Scout wrote: >>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>> to have in place. >>>>> >>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>> >>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>> >>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >> >> How much of your money has been spent on the research >> you claim to want done? > > More than you have spent on Trump’s wall. I pay income taxes that help fund federal projects. The government is currently installing sections of Trump’s 30-foot-high wall. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/us-mexico-border-wall-being-built-slowly/#slide-1 That means I have spent something on Trump's wall. If you have spent more on the research you claim to want done, that means (a) you pay federal taxes, and (b) tax dollars are already being spent on the research you want done. Since according to you the research is being done, you can now stop saying you want it. > And how much do you pay for police and the military > and roads? Your very question is naive. Your attempt to weasel out of answering by changing the subject is duly noted. Now I have to relabel you as a weasely wizened little troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsvhm1.q27.19.4@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2576698 |
On 2019-01-08 12:00 p.m., Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> Scout wrote: >>>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>>> to have in place. >>>>>> >>>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>>> >>>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>>> >>>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >>> >>> How much of your money has been spent on the research >>> you claim to want done? >> >> More than you have spent on Trump’s wall. > > I pay income taxes that help fund federal projects. The government > is currently installing sections of Trump’s 30-foot-high wall. > https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/us-mexico-border-wall-being-built-slowly/#slide-1 > > That means I have spent something on Trump's wall. > If you have spent more on the research you claim to want done, > that means (a) you pay federal taxes, and (b) tax dollars are > already being spent on the research you want done. Since > according to you the research is being done, you can now > stop saying you want it. > > >> And how much do you pay for police and the military >> and roads? Your very question is naive. > > Your attempt to weasel out of answering by changing the > subject is duly noted. Now I have to relabel you as a > weasely wizened little troll. you noted but you didn't record it so it doesn't count
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9kephFo7iU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576698 |
On 1/8/19 12:00 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> Scout wrote: >>>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>>> to have in place. >>>>>> >>>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>>> >>>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>>> >>>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >>> >>> How much of your money has been spent on the research >>> you claim to want done? >> >> More than you have spent on Trump’s wall. > > I pay income taxes that help fund federal projects. The government > is currently installing sections of Trump’s 30-foot-high wall. > https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/us-mexico-border-wall-being-built-slowly/#slide-1 > > That means I have spent something on Trump's wall. Ah, so by spending you include taxes. Then I have spent money and support spending more money on health and safety research on guns. And we should fund it via the government, as we do the sections of the symbolic and mostly useless wall. > If you have spent more on the research you claim to want done, > that means (a) you pay federal taxes, and (b) tax dollars are > already being spent on the research you want done. Since > according to you the research is being done, you can now > stop saying you want it. We have covered how the CDC has zero funding for such research. Now you pretend to not know about this. Seems more and more likely you chew on too many pencils with lead chromate paint... and you have no idea why such pencils are no longer sold in the US. >> And how much do you pay for police and the military >> and roads? Your very question is naive. > > Your attempt to weasel out of answering by changing the > subject is duly noted. Now I have to relabel you as a > weasely wizened little troll. Your naivete was called out and you got angry. How cute! -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 14:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c8ZD.7$UU5.3@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576756 |
On 1/8/2019 1:16 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/8/19 12:00 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> Scout wrote: >>>>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>>>> to have in place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>>>> >>>>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >>>> >>>> How much of your money has been spent on the research >>>> you claim to want done? >>> >>> More than you have spent on Trump’s wall. >> >> I pay income taxes that help fund federal projects. The government >> is currently installing sections of Trump’s 30-foot-high wall. >> https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/us-mexico-border-wall-being-built-slowly/#slide-1 >> >> That means I have spent something on Trump's wall. > > Ah, so by spending you include taxes. Then I have spent money and > support spending more money on health and safety research on guns. Don't move the goalpost. Your claim is that you have spent more money on the research you want done than I have spent on Trump's wall. That is possible only if the research you want done has already been done. >> If you have spent more on the research you claim to want done, >> that means (a) you pay federal taxes, and (b) tax dollars are >> already being spent on the research you want done. Since >> according to you the research is being done, you can now >> stop saying you want it. > > We have covered how the CDC has zero funding for such research. No we haven't. To the contrary, the CDC HAS funded firearm research. For example: https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a1.htm https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0069-3140.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#12 The results of this Obama-directed, CDC-funded study are telling: 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies." 2. Defensive uses of guns are common: "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year... in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008." 3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: "The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons." The report also notes, "Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all unintentional fatalities in 2010." 4. "Interventions" (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce "mixed" results: "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an unresolved issue." The report could not conclude whether "passage of right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime." 5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are "ineffective" in reducing crime: "There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides (Kuhn et al., 2002)." 6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: "More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market." http://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/249799# The CDC is not the only government agency engaged in firearm research. For example: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015 https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013 https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b/5/b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4/55A639CA20094C1538C8B7FE50B3A94A.penn-study-koper.pdf https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/latestreleases.cfm lists NINETEEN PAGES of OVER 1,800 firearm-related studies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsvon2.8rr.17.3@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #2576797 |
. who gives a fk
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 14:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9kikuF1jnhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2576797 |
On 1/8/19 2:00 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/8/2019 1:16 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/8/19 12:00 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> Scout wrote: >>>>>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>>>>> to have in place. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>>>>> >>>>>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >>>>> >>>>> How much of your money has been spent on the research >>>>> you claim to want done? >>>> >>>> More than you have spent on Trump’s wall. >>> >>> I pay income taxes that help fund federal projects. The government >>> is currently installing sections of Trump’s 30-foot-high wall. >>> https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/us-mexico-border-wall-being-built-slowly/#slide-1 >>> >>> That means I have spent something on Trump's wall. >> >> Ah, so by spending you include taxes. Then I have spent money and >> support spending more money on health and safety research on guns. > > Don't move the goalpost. You asked about my spending. Now you include taxes in that. Fine. Then I back such spending. And off you run... as YOU move goal posts from me paying for something (with the implication of it being me directly) to tax money going toward it. > Your claim is that you have spent > more money on the research you want done than I have spent > on Trump's wall. That is possible only if the research you > want done has already been done. How do you figure? >>> If you have spent more on the research you claim to want done, >>> that means (a) you pay federal taxes, and (b) tax dollars are >>> already being spent on the research you want done. Since >>> according to you the research is being done, you can now >>> stop saying you want it. >> >> We have covered how the CDC has zero funding for such research. > > No we haven't. Incorrect. But let us cover it again: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/03/23/596413510/proposed-budget-allows-cdc-to-study-gun-violence-researchers-skeptical ----- There's no funding. There's no agreement to provide funding. ----- > To the contrary, the CDC HAS funded firearm > research. Yo just moved goal posts to what WAS from what IS. > For example: > https://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf > https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6230a1.htm > https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/reports/pdfs/2011-0069-3140.pdf > https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db241.htm > > https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#12 > The results of this Obama-directed, CDC-funded study are telling: > 1. Armed citizens are less likely to be injured by an attacker: > > "Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of > guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was 'used' by the crime victim in > the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found > consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared > with victims who used other self-protective strategies." Do you think this research shows an anti-gun bias? > 2. Defensive uses of guns are common: > > "Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses > by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with > estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 > million per year... in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes > involving firearms in 2008." Do you think this research shows an anti-gun bias? > 3. Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small > fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining: > > "The number of public mass shootings of the type that occurred at Sandy > Hook Elementary School accounted for a very small fraction of all > firearm-related deaths. Since 1983 there have been 78 events in which 4 > or more individuals were killed by a single perpetrator in 1 day in the > United States, resulting in 547 victims and 476 injured persons." The > report also notes, "Unintentional firearm-related deaths have steadily > declined during the past century. The number of unintentional deaths due > to firearm-related incidents accounted for less than 1 percent of all > unintentional fatalities in 2010." Do you think this research shows an anti-gun bias? > 4. "Interventions" (i.e, gun control) such as background checks, > so-called assault rifle bans and gun-free zones produce "mixed" results: > > "Whether gun restrictions reduce firearm-related violence is an > unresolved issue." The report could not conclude whether "passage of > right-to-carry laws decrease or increase violence crime." Do you think this research shows an anti-gun bias? > 5. Gun buyback/turn-in programs are "ineffective" in reducing crime: > > "There is empirical evidence that gun turn in programs are ineffective, > as noted in the 2005 NRC study Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review. > For example, in 2009, an estimated 310 million guns were available to > civilians in the United States (Krouse, 2012), but gun buy-back programs > typically recover less than 1,000 guns (NRC, 2005). On the local level, > buy-backs may increase awareness of firearm violence. However, in > Milwaukee, Wisconsin, for example, guns recovered in the buy-back were > not the same guns as those most often used in homicides and suicides > (Kuhn et al., 2002)." Do you think this research shows an anti-gun bias? > 6. Stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime: > > "More recent prisoner surveys suggest that stolen guns account for only > a small percentage of guns used by convicted criminals. … According to > a 1997 survey of inmates, approximately 70 percent of the guns used or > possess by criminals at the time of their arrest came from family or > friends, drug dealers, street purchases, or the underground market." Do you think this research shows an anti-gun bias? > http://www.gunsandammo.com/editorial/cdc-gun-research-backfires-on-obama/249799# > > > The CDC is not the only government agency engaged in firearm research. Nobody said, suggested, hinted, or implied they were. You are going FAR off topic here. > For example: > https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015 > https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013 > > https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/b/5/b531daeb-a954-41f8-a21c-268cceccb4c4/55A639CA20094C1538C8B7FE50B3A94A.penn-study-koper.pdf > > https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf > https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44126.pdf > https://www.bjs.gov/latestreleases.cfm lists NINETEEN PAGES of OVER > 1,800 firearm-related studies. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 13:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <Zx8ZD.1644$f65.325@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576756 |
On 1/8/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/8/19 12:00 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 6:59 AM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> Scout wrote: >>>>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>>>> to have in place. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>>>> >>>>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>>>> >>>>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >>>> >>>> How much of your money has been spent on the research >>>> you claim to want done? >>> >>> More than you have spent on Trump’s wall. >> >> I pay income taxes that help fund federal projects. The government >> is currently installing sections of Trump’s 30-foot-high wall. >> https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/06/us-mexico-border-wall-being-built-slowly/#slide-1 >> >> That means I have spent something on Trump's wall. > > Ah, so by spending you include taxes. Then I have spent money and support > spending more money on health and safety research on guns. You have spent no money on that. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 11:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <HB6ZD.854$xN2.496@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #2576639 |
On 1/8/2019 5:59 AM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>> to have in place. >>>>> >>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>> >>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>> >>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >> >> How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim >> to want done? >> > > More than you have spent on Trump’s wall. You haven't spent any money on research into gun violence. Stop lying. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 00:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q142n6$dha$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2576574 |
"Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message news:kvZYD.5877$wz4.2259@fx10.iad... > On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>> news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>> to have in place. >>>> >>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>> >>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >> >> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. > > How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim > to want done? Further how much of other people's money would he want spent on such research?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 06:39 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9lj9hF87ciU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2577046 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message > news:kvZYD.5877$wz4.2259@fx10.iad... >> On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>>> news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>>>> to have in place. >>>>> >>>>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>>>> Nobody's stopping you. >>>> >>>> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... >>> >>> You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. >> >> How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim >> to want done? > > Further how much of other people's money would he want spent on such > research? > > How much do you want spent on a symbolic wall? I want research into health and safety issues to be ongoing and ever-improving, at least until the health issue is reduced heavily. So you want less money spent on such research — GOOD, so do I. Let’s work together so that the US is not alone as an industrialized nation with a serious gun issue. Let us work together so we do not have another generation seeing school shootings as we see 9/11. And let’s research the hell out of the problem so we can use evidence-based methods to get there and not your bias or mine. Fair enough... or do you want to just go with your bias and avoid evidence for the rest of your life?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 07:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0qk6e$sou$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2574980 |
In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>>> And THERE IT IS. >>> IT being truth. Sure. >> IT being bias, plainly. > Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit > analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which was busted for misusing federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions which caused its previous disgrace.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2575183 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. > >>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. > >>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. > >>>>> And THERE IT IS. > >>>> IT being truth. Sure. > >>> IT being bias, plainly. > >> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. > > The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which > was busted for misusing > federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the > actions which caused its > previous disgrace. > > > What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 10:33 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0qtcq$ps5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #2575233 |
In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>>> IT being bias, plainly. >>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which was busted for misusing >> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions which caused its >> previous disgrace. > What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was busted for misusing federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions which caused its previous disgrace?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ccanF7fmcU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2575247 |
max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: > In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. > >>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. > >>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. > >>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. > >>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. > >>>>> IT being bias, plainly. > >>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. > >>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>> was busted for misusing >>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>> actions which caused its >>> previous disgrace. > >> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? > > Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was > busted for misusing federal > funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions > which caused its previous > disgrace? > > > If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the government to do its job.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 10:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <D37YD.307970$nY5.274885@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #2575249 |
On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >> >>>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >> >>>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >> >>>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >> >>>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >> >>>>>> IT being bias, plainly. >> >>>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >> >>>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>>> was busted for misusing >>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>> actions which caused its >>>> previous disgrace. >> >>> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? >> >> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >> busted for misusing federal >> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >> which caused its previous >> disgrace? >> >> >> > > If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the > government to do its job. Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ce47F7rs7U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2575253 |
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: > On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>> In news:g9c9rlF6ugvU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>> >>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 >>>>>>>>> PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>>>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's job. >>> >>>>>>>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>>>>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much more. >>> >>>>>>>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>>>>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>>>>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >>> >>>>>>>>> And THERE IT IS. >>> >>>>>>>> IT being truth. Sure. >>> >>>>>>> IT being bias, plainly. >>> >>>>>> Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit >>>>>> analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. >>> >>>>> The bias is your demands we resume funding the one federal agency which >>>>> was busted for misusing >>>>> federal funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the >>>>> actions which caused its >>>>> previous disgrace. >>> >>>> What evidence do you think they will find that goes against your wishes? >>> >>> Why do you demand we resume funding the one federal agency which was >>> busted for misusing federal >>> funds to agitate for more gun control laws so it can resume the actions >>> which caused its previous >>> disgrace? >>> >>> >>> >> >> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >> government to do its job. > > Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? > > https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html > > Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. > We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:40 -0700 |
| Subject | No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <LK7YD.110622$hN7.88245@fx23.iad> |
| In reply to | #2575258 |
On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: > Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>> >>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>> government to do its job. >> >> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. > > We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and > use. I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. Please provide evidence to support your claim that "We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and use." By the way, lots and lots of research has already been done on firearm safety. Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. We know that the Constitution says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. We know that you're a wizened little troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <g9cgfbF8cbnU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #2575270 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>> government to do its job. >>> >>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. >> >> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >> use. > > I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. > > Please provide evidence to support your claim that > "We have health and safety research on pretty much > everything we buy and use." > > By the way, lots and lots of research has already been > done on firearm safety. > > Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you > will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants > to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. > > We know that the Constitution says the right of the people > to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. > > We know that you're a wizened little troll. > What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws and regulations?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:09 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <W98YD.83727$a66.35779@fx27.iad> |
| In reply to | #2575276 |
On 1/5/2019 11:56 AM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>> government to do its job. >>>> >>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. >>> >>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>> use. >> >> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >> >> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >> everything we buy and use." >> >> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >> done on firearm safety. >> >> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >> >> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >> >> We know that you're a wizened little troll. >> ================================================== ================================================== ============= WARNING! WARNING! =============== ========== GOAL POST MOVES AHEAD! ============ ================= WARNING! ==================== ================================================== ================================================== > > What product do you use that is not subject to health and safety laws and > regulations? No one is trying to "regulate" toothpaste right out of existence the way you are trying to do with guns. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:27 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: No we don't was Re: Fact: Gun Ownership Is All That Stands |
| Message-ID | <Oq8YD.169727$R85.167943@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #2575276 |
On 1/5/2019 12:56 PM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 12:16 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/2019 10:45 AM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>> If we need better oversight I have no issue with that. I want the >>>>> government to do its job. >>>> >>>> Who says it's the job of the federal government to conduct this research? >>>> https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html >>>> Please find the enumerated power to conduct research into gun violence. >>> >>> We have health and safety research on pretty much everything we buy and >>> use. >> >> I note you have no answer to Rudy's question. >> >> Please provide evidence to support your claim that >> "We have health and safety research on pretty much >> everything we buy and use." >> >> By the way, lots and lots of research has already been >> done on firearm safety. >> >> Even without research, we know that if you are shot, you >> will be hurt or killed. We know that if a bad guy wants >> to hurt people, laws against hurting people won't stop him. >> >> We know that the Constitution says the right of the people >> to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. >> >> We know that you're a wizened little troll. > > What product do you use that is not subject to health > and safety laws and regulations? Don't try to avoid the question by changing the subject. You claim "We have health and safety RESEARCH on pretty much everything we buy and use." Your challenge is to provide evidence to support that claim. Your refusal to provide any evidence suggests you don't because you can't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.atheism
csiph-web