Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #245235 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-04 09:03 -0800 |
| Last post | 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000 |
| Articles | 19 on this page of 119 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
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 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
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 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 "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 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 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 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
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 14:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9ckfoF96s2U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245678 |
On 1/5/19 1:32 PM, Snit wrote:... >> That's some red herring you're dishing up. The question I >> asked was not the legality of government agencies (although >> that's another interesting issue). The question is, What >> part of the Constitution makes the research you want the >> government's job? The fact that you can't or won't see >> the difference makes you a functionally illiterate wizened >> little troll. > > I think your game of pretending the CDC and FDA and the ATF and more are > all illegal and only you noticed is silly. And it is SO far off topic as > to not be worth going down that rabbit hole. > > And, no, the government is not doing the research I am talking about -- > or doing it far less than they do for other items (as has been > repeatedly shown). > > The fact you try to change topics and go in circles is quite telling to > how you know you cannot support your rejection of doing risk / benefit > analysis on guns as we do with pretty much everything else, and how you > fear evidence-based laws and regulations in terms of guns. > > Which is pretty much where we started... but now you have offered a lot > more evidence to back what I first noted. :) > Just Wondering replied by begging me to go down that rabbit hole with him anyway. Well, I suppose I can see why he would think I might... when Bigdog played a similar game pretending he and he alone figured out that, gasp!, the environment has changed in the past and somehow scientists had missed this I *did* go down that rabbit hole. But I get to pick which trolling topics pushed by others interest me. They do not. Fun to watch them freak out when their favored trolling topic does not pull me in as they wish. -- 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 | 2019-01-05 13:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ys9YD.426620$_35.282285@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #245685 |
On 1/5/2019 1:04 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/5/19 1:32 PM, Snit wrote:... Snot petulantly and childishly responded to his own post, telling more lies in the process. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9R8YD.426618$_35.418200@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #245674 |
On 1/5/2019 12:32 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/5/19 1:21 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 12:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>> On 1/5/2019 11:45 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. >>>> >>>> Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution: >>>> http://constitutionus.com/ >>>> What part of the Constitution makes the research you want >>>> the government's job? >>> >>> Not playing that game. >> >> So you think finding constitutional authority for what the federal >> government does is just playing a game. Well, it's a game people should >> take more seriously. >> >>> We already know the government does this >> >> If the government is already doing the research you want, >> why are you always making a big deal out of it? >> >>> and it is not illegal. >> >> We don't know that. Just because government does a thing, even >> if it has done it for years, does not make it constitutional. >> >>> I mean, really, do you think the FDA and CDC and more are all illegal and >>> nobody but you noticed? What a stupid game. >> >> That's some red herring you're dishing up. The question I >> asked was not the legality of government agencies (although >> that's another interesting issue). The question is, What >> part of the Constitution makes the research you want the >> government's job? The fact that you can't or won't see >> the difference makes you a functionally illiterate wizened >> little troll. > > I think your game of pretending the CDC and FDA and the ATF and more are > all illegal and Straw man. He didn't say the agencies are illegal. You lied. -- 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 15:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9cq3uFaem9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245674 |
On 1/5/19 1:32 PM, Snit wrote: ... >> That's some red herring you're dishing up. The question I >> asked was not the legality of government agencies (although >> that's another interesting issue). The question is, What >> part of the Constitution makes the research you want the >> government's job? The fact that you can't or won't see >> the difference makes you a functionally illiterate wizened >> little troll. > > I think your game of pretending the CDC and FDA and the ATF and more are > all illegal and only you noticed is silly. And it is SO far off topic as > to not be worth going down that rabbit hole. > > And, no, the government is not doing the research I am talking about -- > or doing it far less than they do for other items (as has been > repeatedly shown). > > The fact you try to change topics and go in circles is quite telling to > how you know you cannot support your rejection of doing risk / benefit > analysis on guns as we do with pretty much everything else, and how you > fear evidence-based laws and regulations in terms of guns. > > Which is pretty much where we started... but now you have offered a lot > more evidence to back what I first noted. :) > Just Wondering replied by begging me to go down that rabbit hole with him anyway. Well, I suppose I can see why he would think I might... when Bigdog played a similar game pretending he and he alone figured out that, gasp!, the environment has changed in the past and somehow scientists had missed this I *did* go down that rabbit hole. But I get to pick which trolling topics pushed by others interest me. They do not. Fun to watch them freak out when their favored trolling topic does not pull me in as they wish. -- 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 | 2019-01-05 14:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <JtaYD.377306$2A7.144229@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #245729 |
On 1/5/2019 2:41 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/5/19 1:32 PM, Snit wrote: > Snot responded to his own troll with more lies. -- Snot's '.sig' is wrong, sophomoric and indicative of his bloated ego. Snot fancies himself the Great Tribune of Usenet, who is going to tell all the rest of us What It All Means. Well...no. Just no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <do8YD.242133$zj1.149881@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #245663 |
On 1/5/2019 11:52 AM, Snit wrote: > Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >> On 1/5/2019 11:45 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. >> >> Here's a link to the U.S. Constitution: >> http://constitutionus.com/ >> What part of the Constitution makes the research you want >> the government's job? >> >> > > Not playing that game. LOL! Snot waves the white flag of surrender. That's funny! -- 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 | 2019-01-05 10:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <YX6YD.307968$nY5.129916@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #245578 |
On 1/5/2019 7:08 AM, maxipad oozed: > 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 It was not. The CDC did not advocate *ANY* gun control laws. They were doing research into gun violence, and the research clearly was pointing to loose gun laws leading to more gun violence, which, of course, any reasonable person would expect. But they did not advocate for any gun control lies. You're lying, maxipad. -- 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 | <g9ce46F7rs7U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245619 |
Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote: > On 1/5/2019 7:08 AM, maxipad oozed: >> 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 > > It was not. The CDC did not advocate *ANY* gun control laws. They were > doing research into gun violence, and the research clearly was pointing to > loose gun laws leading to more gun violence, which, of course, any > reasonable person would expect. But they did not advocate for any gun > control lies. You're lying, maxipad. > Interesting. Max: support?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 12:21 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0r4eh$76t$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245619 |
In news:YX6YD.307968$nY5.129916@fx15.iad, Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> typed: > On 1/5/2019 7:08 AM, max the magnanimous elucidated: >> 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 > It was not. The CDC did not advocate *ANY* gun control laws. They were > doing research into gun violence, and the research clearly was pointing to > loose gun laws leading to more gun violence, which, of course, any > reasonable person would expect. But they did not advocate for any gun > control lies. You're lying, maxipad. Read it and weep, rude one. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc It's about time for you to decry The Hill as a right-wing rag, then alter my text to make yourself look better and descend into an obscenity-laced tirade.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 13:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9ck2mF94t2U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245675 |
On 1/5/19 1:21 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:YX6YD.307968$nY5.129916@fx15.iad, Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> typed: > >> On 1/5/2019 7:08 AM, max the magnanimous elucidated: >>> 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 > >> It was not. The CDC did not advocate *ANY* gun control laws. They were >> doing research into gun violence, and the research clearly was pointing to >> loose gun laws leading to more gun violence, which, of course, any >> reasonable person would expect. But they did not advocate for any gun >> control lies. You're lying, maxipad. > > Read it and weep, rude one. > > https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc > > It's about time for you to decry The Hill as a right-wing rag, then alter my text to make yourself > look better and descend into an obscenity-laced tirade. > > It claims those bothered by the lack of research show "faux outrage". This shows bias in the article. But with ALL of this, even if officials or CDC had people there or procedures that had biases they should not then the solution is to FIX THE DEPARTMENT... and I have talked about having better oversight and removing people if they prove themselves to not be competent. The main "logic" of this is that since the White House *right now* is clearly incompetent and biased we should just do away with the Presidency and not seek to get a better president. There is no logic, only emotion, to the work to prevent the CDC from doing health and safety research on guns as they do on other things tied to health and safety issues. We are back to where I originally started: let us have EVIDENCE-BASED polices and laws. Since then I have introduced the idea of having a risk / benefit analysis, which really is just a natural implication of the former. There is no logical reason not to and plenty of reason to do these things. -- 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 | "max headroom" <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 18:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <q0rq2p$n6m$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245681 |
In news:g9ck2mF94t2U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > On 1/5/19 1:21 PM, max headroom wrote: >> In news:YX6YD.307968$nY5.129916@fx15.iad, Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> typed: >>> On 1/5/2019 7:08 AM, max the magnanimous elucidated: >>>> 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 >>> It was not. The CDC did not advocate *ANY* gun control laws. They were >>> doing research into gun violence, and the research clearly was pointing to >>> loose gun laws leading to more gun violence, which, of course, any >>> reasonable person would expect. But they did not advocate for any gun >>> control lies. You're lying, maxipad. >> Read it and weep, rude one. >> https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc >> It's about time for you to decry The Hill as a right-wing rag, then alter my text to make >> yourself look better and descend into an obscenity-laced tirade. > It claims those bothered by the lack of research show "faux outrage". > This shows bias in the article. It states, "...several dozen other Democrats, the letter drips faux outrage." It is an accurate statement. > But with ALL of this, even if officials or CDC had people there or > procedures that had biases they should not then the solution is to FIX > THE DEPARTMENT... and I have talked about having better oversight and > removing people if they prove themselves to not be competent. When you achieve that, let us know, and I'll reconsider my opposition.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9d8lvFdbemU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245818 |
On 1/5/19 7:36 PM, max headroom wrote: > In news:g9ck2mF94t2U1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: > >> On 1/5/19 1:21 PM, max headroom wrote: >>> In news:YX6YD.307968$nY5.129916@fx15.iad, Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> typed: >>>> On 1/5/2019 7:08 AM, max the magnanimous elucidated: >>>>> 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 > >>>> It was not. The CDC did not advocate *ANY* gun control laws. They were >>>> doing research into gun violence, and the research clearly was pointing to >>>> loose gun laws leading to more gun violence, which, of course, any >>>> reasonable person would expect. But they did not advocate for any gun >>>> control lies. You're lying, maxipad. > >>> Read it and weep, rude one. > >>> https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc > >>> It's about time for you to decry The Hill as a right-wing rag, then alter my text to make >>> yourself look better and descend into an obscenity-laced tirade. > >> It claims those bothered by the lack of research show "faux outrage". >> This shows bias in the article. > > It states, "...several dozen other Democrats, the letter drips faux outrage." > It is an accurate statement. How so? There is a reason to be concerned when conservatives work to harm the country. >> But with ALL of this, even if officials or CDC had people there or >> procedures that had biases they should not then the solution is to FIX >> THE DEPARTMENT... and I have talked about having better oversight and >> removing people if they prove themselves to not be competent. > > When you achieve that, let us know, and I'll reconsider my opposition. You will NEVER accept evidence-based policies... you fear them. Even you know your wishes go against what you think the evidence shows. -- 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 | 2019-01-05 13:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <Lr9YD.426619$_35.138468@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #245675 |
On 1/5/2019 12:21 PM, maxipad oozed: > In news:YX6YD.307968$nY5.129916@fx15.iad, Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> typed: > >> On 1/5/2019 7:08 AM, maxipad oozed: >>> In news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>> maxipad oozed: >>>>> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>>> maxipad oozed: >>>>>>> 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 > >> It was not. The CDC did not advocate *ANY* gun control laws. They were >> doing research into gun violence, and the research clearly was pointing to >> loose gun laws leading to more gun violence, which, of course, any >> reasonable person would expect. But they did not advocate for any gun >> control lies. You're lying, maxipad. > > Read it and weep, rude one. > > https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/politics/261307-why-congress-stopped-gun-control-activism-at-the-cdc Does not show any gun control advocacy by the CDC. That's because there never was any. The CDC funded gun violence research, and when some of the research showed an association between gun proliferation and gun violence, some gun control advocates played that up. But the CDC did not advocate any gun control measures or engage in "activism". You lied again, maxipad. Research into gun violence is *not* gun control "activism", maxipad. Jay Dickey died deeply regretting what he had done to stop research into gun violence by the CDC. STEVE INSKEEP, HOST: Many people have opinions about the effect of guns on society. Not many people have facts. There's a shortage of research, and a big reason is a provision in federal law sponsored by a man who now regrets it. He's an ex-congressman, Jay Dickey. His law ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention never to fund research that could be seen as advocacy for gun control. Since the 1990s, that provision has commonly stopped any gun studies because researchers don't want to risk losing federal money, and that is what Jay Dickey regrets. The Arkansas politician and owner of two shotguns says he just wanted the CDC to follow a simple rule. JAY DICKEY: Don't let any of those dollars go to gun control advocacy. INSKEEP: So that's what the intent was. Did you intend to cut off all research on the effects of guns or gun ownership in society? DICKEY: We didn't think about that. It turned out that that's what happened, but it wasn't aimed at that. And it wasn't necessary that all research stop. It just couldn't be the collection of data so that they can advocate gun control. That's all we were talking about. But for some reason, it just stopped altogether. INSKEEP: Why do you think that was? DICKEY: I don't know, but that's where my regret is. I was on to other things and worrying about my constituents. And I didn't follow through and say, we need - still need to do research. I didn't do that. INSKEEP: Did this especially hit home in recent years? Because there have been some very, very highly publicized mass shootings, including the one the other day in Oregon. DICKEY: I've been reminded of that through those things, yes. I've gone back through it in my mind to say, what could we have done, and I know what we could've done. We could've kept the fund alive and just restricted the expenditure of dollars. INSKEEP: It has created a strange situation, hasn't it? If you want to learn details about mass shootings, you can't really find good information. DICKEY: Well, I think you're right. And the thing that really brought this to my mind was watching as the little barricades were set up between the interstate to stop head-on collisions. The highway industry spent money in their scientific research to figure out what could be done, assuming that they were going to allow cars to continue to be on our highways. Enormous reduction of head-on collisions has been caused just by that little 2-and-a-half, 3-foot fence. We could do the same in the gun industry. INSKEEP: You're saying there might be some way to not interfere with anybody's right to own a gun but regulate it in such a way that fewer people are killed by guns? DICKEY: That's correct. I can't tell you what that might be, but I know this. All this time that we have had, we would've found a solution, in my opinion. And I think it's a shame that we haven't. https://www.npr.org/2015/10/09/447098666/ex-rep-dickey-regrets-restrictive-law-on-gun-violence-research The Dickey Amendment was supposedly intended to prevent the CDC engaging in gun control advocacy, but it never was doing that. Instead, the amendment had the effect of cutting all funding into gun violence research. That's bad and wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 03:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vt%XD.465373$GZ9.103675@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #245476 |
On 1/4/2019 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: > we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in > deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. Then you agree that most if not all existing gun control laws should be repealed, because they were enacted with no such analysis, and there is no evidence we are safer because of them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q11cfe$2ff$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245506 |
"Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message news:vt%XD.465373$GZ9.103675@fx45.iad... > On 1/4/2019 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: > >> we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in >> deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. > > Then you agree that most if not all existing gun control laws > should be repealed, because they were enacted with no such > analysis, and there is no evidence we are safer because of them. *WAMP* That's gotta sting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9itmfFknokU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246434 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message > news:vt%XD.465373$GZ9.103675@fx45.iad... >> On 1/4/2019 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: >> >>> we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in >>> deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. >> >> Then you agree that most if not all existing gun control laws >> should be repealed, because they were enacted with no such >> analysis, and there is no evidence we are safer because of them. > > *WAMP* > > That's gotta sting. > > > What makes anyone think there has been no such analysis? The data is limited because of the NRA and their supporters — which means the laws and regulations will not be targeted as well. One would hope the NRA would care about better targeting. They don’t and thus they and those who back their push against research have no room to whine that laws are not as heavily based on research as they could be. The NRA shoots itself in the foot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 23:30 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <xkYYD.433628$gk1.155302@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #246444 |
On 1/7/2019 10:18 PM, Snit wrote: > Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >> >> >> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >> news:vt%XD.465373$GZ9.103675@fx45.iad... >>> On 1/4/2019 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>> >>>> we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in >>>> deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. >>> >>> Then you agree that most if not all existing gun control laws >>> should be repealed, because they were enacted with no such >>> analysis, and there is no evidence we are safer because of them. >> >> *WAMP* >> >> That's gotta sting. >> >> >> > > What makes anyone think there has been no such analysis? How can you show that there has been, Snot? LOL! -- 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 | 2019-01-08 03:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q140e2$2gu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #246455 |
"Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message news:xkYYD.433628$gk1.155302@fx47.iad... > On 1/7/2019 10:18 PM, Snit wrote: >> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>> news:vt%XD.465373$GZ9.103675@fx45.iad... >>>> On 1/4/2019 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>>> we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in >>>>> deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. >>>> >>>> Then you agree that most if not all existing gun control laws >>>> should be repealed, because they were enacted with no such >>>> analysis, and there is no evidence we are safer because of them. >>> >>> *WAMP* >>> >>> That's gotta sting. >>> >>> >>> >> >> What makes anyone think there has been no such analysis? Well, because if there was then you wouldn't be in here whining about how such an analysis was needed...... *Boom* > > How can you show that there has been, Snot? > > LOL! If he could, then why would he be whining about how we need such an analysis? Apparently he's managed to forget his own position and argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 05:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9lgbkF7k9pU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246794 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message > news:xkYYD.433628$gk1.155302@fx47.iad... >> On 1/7/2019 10:18 PM, Snit wrote: >>> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>>> news:vt%XD.465373$GZ9.103675@fx45.iad... >>>>> On 1/4/2019 11:07 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> we can and should do risk / benefit analysis in >>>>>> deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. >>>>> >>>>> Then you agree that most if not all existing gun control laws >>>>> should be repealed, because they were enacted with no such >>>>> analysis, and there is no evidence we are safer because of them. >>>> >>>> *WAMP* >>>> >>>> That's gotta sting. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> What makes anyone think there has been no such analysis? > > Well, because if there was then you wouldn't be in here whining about how > such an analysis was needed...... > > *Boom* Because we know the NRA and their backers fear it and work against it. We know that they push ideas, such as having armed teachers, which is contrary to the evidence of what works. We know the NRA seeks to even block things such as universal background checks, even though most Americans, and the evidence, back such measures. > > >> >> How can you show that there has been, Snot? >> >> LOL! > > If he could, then why would he be whining about how we need such an > analysis? > > Apparently he's managed to forget his own position and argument. > > > > Nope: I am well aware of my position: I back evidence based solutions. Where we do not have the evidence from the NRA blocking the research then they and others who back their crap have no standing in crying about how laws are not well backed by the very research they fear and block and reject. I know I stand with evidence and equal rights, and I never forget that. And I also know how upsetting you show that to be to you. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web