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 | 20 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 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 14:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <_l8ZD.4003$Fj3.2017@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #246602 |
On 1/8/2019 1:14 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/8/19 12:04 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: >>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>> >>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>> >>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>> >>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>> >>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>> agreement here. >> >> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >> checks for all gun purchases. > > Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. Liar. What I wrote is that if you have a clean background passing a background check is not hard. That doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. Any time the federal government sticks its nose in your private business is a big deal. Any lover of liberty should mistrust government intrusions into his life.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 14:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9kj1aF1jnhU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246657 |
On 1/8/19 2:11 PM, Just Wondering wrote: > On 1/8/2019 1:14 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/8/19 12:04 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: >>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>>> >>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>>> >>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional illiteracy. >>>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>>> >>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>>> agreement here. >>> >>> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >>> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >>> checks for all gun purchases. >> >> Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. > > Liar. You should talk with this guy: Just Wondering: ----- Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You have to be able to pay the purchase price. ----- Unlike you, he does not think such checks are a big deal. LOL! > What I wrote is that if you have a clean background passing a > background check is not hard. That doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. Your flip flops and hair splitting amuses me. It is not hard but it is a big deal? What? No... you are playing games now. > Any time the federal government sticks its nose in your private business > is a big deal. Any lover of liberty should mistrust government > intrusions into his life. But personal threats are fine? LOL! You have no consistent world view other than you want what you want. -- 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 16:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fvaZD.2449$375.1765@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #246664 |
On 1/8/2019 2:29 PM, Snit wrote: > On 1/8/19 2:11 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> On 1/8/2019 1:14 PM, Snit wrote: >>> On 1/8/19 12:04 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: >>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>>>> >>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional >>>>>> illiteracy. >>>>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>>>> >>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>>>> agreement here. >>>> >>>> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >>>> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >>>> checks for all gun purchases. >>> >>> Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. >> >> Liar. > > You should talk with this guy: > > Just Wondering: > ----- > Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: > (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean > background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You > have to be able to pay the purchase price. > ----- > > Unlike you, he does not think such checks are a big deal. LOL! > >> What I wrote is that if you have a clean background passing a >> background check is not hard. That doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. > > Your flip flops and hair splitting amuses me. > > It is not hard but it is a big deal? What? No... you are playing games now. > >> Any time the federal government sticks its nose in your private business >> is a big deal. Any lover of liberty should mistrust government >> intrusions into his life. > > But personal threats are fine? LOL! > > You have no consistent world view other than you want what you want. Check my just-posted comments to another part of this thread, explaining the difference between "not hard" and "not a big deal". Another example" It would be not hard to cause a car accident injuring or killing someone, but it would be a big deal if you did.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-09 00:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9ks65F3l5sU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246685 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/8/2019 2:29 PM, Snit wrote: >> On 1/8/19 2:11 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >>> On 1/8/2019 1:14 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> On 1/8/19 12:04 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: >>>>>>>> Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/7/2019 4:34 PM, Snit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not really. Anyone with a clean background can get one. >>>>>>>>> Government regulations have artificially raised the price, >>>>>>>>> but that's another matter. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are hurdles. As their should be. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >>>>>>> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >>>>>>> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >>>>>>> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ["As their should be" - another example of your functional >>>>>>> illiteracy. >>>>>>> That wasn't a type, it was the incorrect word choice.] >>>>>> >>>>>> So you deem background checks to be not a big hurdle. >>>>>> Great. Let’s make them universal for all gun purchases. Good to see >>>>>> agreement here. >>>>> >>>>> Liar. There is no agreement here. I just pointed out that >>>>> you lied when you wrote "We make it quite hard to have a fully >>>>> automatic weapon." I am totally opposed to universal background >>>>> checks for all gun purchases. >>>> >>>> Wait, you have made it clear it is not a big deal to have such a check. >>> >>> Liar. >> >> You should talk with this guy: >> >> Just Wondering: >> ----- >> Those "hurdles" are not "quite hard". There are only three hurdles: >> (1) You have to pass a background check, which if you have a clean >> background is not hard. (2) You have to pay a $200 tax. (3) You >> have to be able to pay the purchase price. >> ----- >> >> Unlike you, he does not think such checks are a big deal. LOL! >> >>> What I wrote is that if you have a clean background passing a >>> background check is not hard. That doesn't mean it isn't a big deal. >> >> Your flip flops and hair splitting amuses me. >> >> It is not hard but it is a big deal? What? No... you are playing games now. >> >>> Any time the federal government sticks its nose in your private business >>> is a big deal. Any lover of liberty should mistrust government >>> intrusions into his life. >> >> But personal threats are fine? LOL! >> >> You have no consistent world view other than you want what you want. > > Check my just-posted comments to another part of this thread, > explaining the difference between "not hard" and "not a big deal". > Another example" It would be not hard to cause a car accident > injuring or killing someone, but it would be a big deal if you did. > You split hairs to try to back out of your hypocrisy. Sure.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2p0a3e5dscoqc490bkqj6ik8t6qg70bs8u@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246365 |
On Mon, 7 Jan 2019 16:34:32 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: > We make it quite hard to have a fully automatic weapon. Thanks for proving your ignorance. $200 tax is the difference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 03:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q10mg6$t6d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245487 |
"Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message news:fFYXD.78241$qC3.46650@fx28.iad... > On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >> 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 > > You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is > banning guns. Cut the shit. OMG, Rudy actually saying something both truthful and that I totally agree with.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 16:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9i62vFfvv4U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246347 |
On 1/5/19 1:39 AM, Scout wrote: > > > "Rudy Canoza" <cap@philhendrie.con> wrote in message > news:fFYXD.78241$qC3.46650@fx28.iad... >> On 1/4/2019 10:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>> 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 >> >> You don't care about "risk/benefit" analysis. All you care about is >> banning guns. Cut the shit. > > OMG, Rudy actually saying something both truthful and that I totally > agree with..... He, like you, fears the research that would lead to better risk / benefit analysis in terms of guns. You just want to have your toys no matter how far outside of the evidence it goes. Amazing to watch you guys trip over yourselves in an effort to tell the biggest lies as you work to avoid those realities. -- 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 | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 02:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q0pqdu$9ud$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245482 |
"Snit" <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in message news:g9b2i1Ft3krU1@mid.individual.net... > max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >> In news:g9avtrFsig2U14@mid.individual.net, Snit >> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >> >>> max headroom <maximusheadroom@gmx.com> wrote: >>>> In news:g985omF9mdrU1@mid.individual.net, Snit >>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> typed: >>>>> On 1/3/19 9:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote: >> >>>>>> The topic is research, although WHAT research remaans undefined. The >>>>>> Constitution does not make that research the federal government's >>>>>> job. >> >>>>> The research has been defined: health and safety research -- as we do >>>>> with food and cars and consumer products and construction and much >>>>> more. >> >>>>> Again, you play foolish to avoid the fact YOU think the research will >>>>> find things that go against your bias. THAT is the reason you do not >>>>> want the CDC to do the research it should. >> >>>> And THERE IT IS. >> >>> IT being truth. Sure. >> >> IT being bias, plainly. > > Please explain what bias you see in the concept of have risk / benefit > analyses for products shown or believed to be tied to harm. Be specific. Simple. The CDC is not the proper agency for that, and they have a proven track record of posting biased and misleading 'research' to advance a particular political agenda. Now do you want research, or propaganda?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 03:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7v%XD.465374$GZ9.30352@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #245482 |
On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: > 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. > >> >>>> Once again, Snit 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. >> >>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis >>> in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. >> >> Laws and regulations, maybe, but not rights. You're not talking about >> zoning laws or freight rates. >> The Founding Fathers believed the right to keep and bear arms so >> important they included it as a >> stand-alone amendment. > > And all rights are limited and balanced. >> >> Once again, Snit 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. >> >> >> > > Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk / benefit analysis > in deciding what laws and regulations to have in place. Every single gun control law has a 100% risk of infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 03:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #245482 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 22:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <q11cfe$2ff$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #245508 |
"Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message news:Yw%XD.465375$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.......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9itmgFknokU4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246435 |
Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: > > > "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message > news:Yw%XD.465375$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>> >>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>> to have in place. >> >> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >> Nobody's stopping you. > > Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... > > You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 01:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kvZYD.5877$wz4.2259@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #246445 |
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$GZ9.22499@fx45.iad... >>> On 1/4/2019 11:52 PM, Snit wrote: >>>> >>>> Really the concept is simple: we can and should do risk >>>> / benefit analysis in deciding what laws and regulations >>>> to have in place. >>> >>> So go out and do your precious analysis already. >>> Nobody's stopping you. >> >> Except that he refuses to pay for it with his own money....... > > You have no clue how the government is funded. Got it. How much of your money has been spent on the research you claim to want done?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 13:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9jol5Fqga7U11@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246459 |
Just Wondering <JW@me.com> wrote: > On 1/7/2019 11:18 PM, Snit wrote: >> Scout <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Just Wondering" <JW@me.com> wrote in message >>> news:Yw%XD.465375$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. And how much do you pay for police and the military and roads? Your very question is naive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Just Wondering <JW@me.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-08 12:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ur6ZD.2273$e55.1087@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #246481 |
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 | #246570 |
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 | #246570 |
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 | #246606 |
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 | #246643 |
. 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 | #246643 |
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]
Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web