Christian florist vows Supreme appeal in same-sex war

[JoeB131]

Actually it is. The idea that law abiding citizens can be prevented from owning firearms is a new concept.

The cities with the worst violence have the strongest gun control laws, isn't that weird?

Not at all. You can't have city gun control laws. They have to be national. Which we DID have in the 1930's when gangs were shooting eachother in the street with Tommy Guns. and no one, not even the NRA, thought htat was a bad idea.

That was before the gun industry realized they had to cater to the 2% of nuts who want to arm themselves like the Zombies are coming.

It was a setup question. and you have no idea about their pizza, you just like to lie.

My very first job in 1978. Making Pizza. No one ever ordered Pizza for a wedding. Ever. These homophobes just wanted to get attention. And they got attention, just not the attention they wanted.

Making machine guns harder to get does not equate me having to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a fucking revolver. That is infringement.

Give me back my rights to something as simple as a revolver, then we can talk about pray and spray weapons. Until then, not one step back.

THE REPORTER CAME TO THEM

Your fetish costs 32 k lives a year... and 270 Billion in economic losses. a 6 month waiting period and a 1000 license actually sounds reasonable. Someone who can't afford that isn't someone I want having a gun to start with.

The reporter didn't make them say something stupid... they did that all on their own.

 

[martybegan]

Actually it is. The idea that law abiding citizens can be prevented from owning firearms is a new concept.

The cities with the worst violence have the strongest gun control laws, isn't that weird?

Not at all. You can't have city gun control laws. They have to be national. Which we DID have in the 1930's when gangs were shooting eachother in the street with Tommy Guns. and no one, not even the NRA, thought htat was a bad idea.

That was before the gun industry realized they had to cater to the 2% of nuts who want to arm themselves like the Zombies are coming.

It was a setup question. and you have no idea about their pizza, you just like to lie.

My very first job in 1978. Making Pizza. No one ever ordered Pizza for a wedding. Ever. These homophobes just wanted to get attention. And they got attention, just not the attention they wanted.

Making machine guns harder to get does not equate me having to wait 6 months and pay $1000 for a fucking revolver. That is infringement.

Give me back my rights to something as simple as a revolver, then we can talk about pray and spray weapons. Until then, not one step back.

THE REPORTER CAME TO THEM

Your fetish costs 32 k lives a year... and 270 Billion in economic losses. a 6 month waiting period and a 1000 license actually sounds reasonable. Someone who can't afford that isn't someone I want having a gun to start with.

The reporter didn't make them say something stupid... they did that all on their own.

So your saying only rich people should be able to defend themselves? What an asshole...

And please link the 270 billion number, or rather don't because we all know your source will be bullshit.

of those 32k, more than half are suicides, those don't count.

 

[JoeB131]

So your saying only rich people should be able to defend themselves? What an asshole...

Guy, we've already established this. Guns are USELESS for self-defense. a Gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

So only the rich should be able to indulge in the fantasy that their dicks aren't small.

And please link the 270 billion number, or rather don't because we all know your source will be bullshit..

The business insider puts the number at 229 Billion.

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

They do a very nice job of breaking down the cost of your fetish.

of those 32k, more than half are suicides, those don't count.

Tell you what, say that to someone whose family member killed themselves.
"No biggie, it was only a suicide".

 

[martybegan]

So your saying only rich people should be able to defend themselves? What an asshole...

Guy, we've already established this. Guns are USELESS for self-defense. a Gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy.

So only the rich should be able to indulge in the fantasy that their dicks aren't small.

And please link the 270 billion number, or rather don't because we all know your source will be bullshit..

The business insider puts the number at 229 Billion.

A breakdown of the $229 billion gun violence tab that American taxpayers are paying every year

They do a very nice job of breaking down the cost of your fetish.

of those 32k, more than half are suicides, those don't count.

Tell you what, say that to someone whose family member killed themselves.
"No biggie, it was only a suicide".

again quoting a useless 20+ year old study of one county in Oregon. Fail, massive fail.

Rights are for everyone, asshole.

First you are pointed out as lying on value, and then the study you quote is one of those if when else maybe kinda sorta reviews of data that attribute anything bad in the world to guns.

In the Engineering community, we call this "bullshit"

 

[JoeB131]

again quoting a useless 20+ year old study of one county in Oregon. Fail, massive fail.

The Kellerman Study was in Washington State. If you can't even get that part of it right, not sure what there is to do for you. Of course, I'd be happy to fund NEW studies to validate the original data, but the Gun Industry told Congress to never let that happen again.

First you are pointed out as lying on value, and then the study you quote is one of those if when else maybe kinda sorta reviews of data that attribute anything bad in the world to guns.

In the Engineering community, we call this "bullshit"

Well, right. In the real world, we call that evidence. All this misery caused by your fetish, and you guys take no responsibility for it.

 

[martybegan]

again quoting a useless 20+ year old study of one county in Oregon. Fail, massive fail.

The Kellerman Study was in Washington State. If you can't even get that part of it right, not sure what there is to do for you. Of course, I'd be happy to fund NEW studies to validate the original data, but the Gun Industry told Congress to never let that happen again.

First you are pointed out as lying on value, and then the study you quote is one of those if when else maybe kinda sorta reviews of data that attribute anything bad in the world to guns.

In the Engineering community, we call this "bullshit"

Well, right. In the real world, we call that evidence. All this misery caused by your fetish, and you guys take no responsibility for it.

And there is no source of funding outside government? I'm sure your pockets are big enough to at least kick in $100 to another flawed Study.

And I was one State off, and you didn't counter my "one county" part, so sod off.

It's not evidence when you want to disarm law abiding people by quoting the costs of criminals and guns.

 

[JoeB131]

And there is no source of funding outside government? I'm sure your pockets are big enough to at least kick in $100 to another flawed Study.

And I was one State off, and you didn't counter my "one county" part, so sod off.

It's not evidence when you want to disarm law abiding people by quoting the costs of criminals and guns.

Guy, if you don't know what state it was in, you really aren't in any position to argue the validity of it.

Man, I hope your engineering isn't done with as much accuracy. Or at least give us a list of everything you've worked on so we know to avoid it.

"Well, I was only a few numbers off...:

 

[martybegan]

And there is no source of funding outside government? I'm sure your pockets are big enough to at least kick in $100 to another flawed Study.

And I was one State off, and you didn't counter my "one county" part, so sod off.

It's not evidence when you want to disarm law abiding people by quoting the costs of criminals and guns.

Guy, if you don't know what state it was in, you really aren't in any position to argue the validity of it.

Man, I hope your engineering isn't done with as much accuracy. Or at least give us a list of everything you've worked on so we know to avoid it.

"Well, I was only a few numbers off...:

The underlying bullshit of the study is not suddenly evaporated by me being one State off. it's still 20+ years old and based on only one county.

You have your gotcha moment, and it sucks.

 

[JoeB131]

The underlying bullshit of the study is not suddenly evaporated by me being one State off. it's still 20+ years old and based on only one county.

Uh, yeah, guy, because if you didn't know that, then you probably don't know the details.

Again, I honestly hope this isn't how you do your day job.

 

[martybegan]

The underlying bullshit of the study is not suddenly evaporated by me being one State off. it's still 20+ years old and based on only one county.

Uh, yeah, guy, because if you didn't know that, then you probably don't know the details.

Again, I honestly hope this isn't how you do your day job.

It's not an important detail, and does nothing to detract from my other points, which involve the small locality, the age of the Study, not to even get into its dubious academic basis, and other issues.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not an important detail, and does nothing to detract from my other points, which involve the small locality, the age of the Study, not to even get into its dubious academic basis, and other issues.

dude, I hope you don't do engineering on the "It's not an important detail" theory. You can't profess knowledge of a study and then not even know what state it was in.

"Well, dun, der, Cleetus, it's one of them done der states them fags and hippies live in!"

 

[martybegan]

It's not an important detail, and does nothing to detract from my other points, which involve the small locality, the age of the Study, not to even get into its dubious academic basis, and other issues.

dude, I hope you don't do engineering on the "It's not an important detail" theory. You can't profess knowledge of a study and then not even know what state it was in.

"Well, dun, der, Cleetus, it's one of them done der states them fags and hippies live in!"

This isn't going to work with me JoeBlow, I was off by one State, and for some reason that makes you think you can ignore all the other pertinent issues with the so call Study,.

I've beaten you about this in the past, and I will continue to beat you on it. But keep jerking yourself off thinking of your "gotcha" moment. its probably the only joy you are getting in your miserable, hate filled life. Well, that and Mormon bashing.

 

[JoeB131]

This isn't going to work with me JoeBlow, I was off by one State, and for some reason that makes you think you can ignore all the other pertinent issues with the so call Study,.

Yes, when you get a REALLY major fact wrong, that tells me you aren't that familiar with the details of the study. You just don't like it because it says something you don't want to hear (That most gun deaths are people being killed with a gun that someone in the home owned).

Of course, the gun nuts HATE this study, because it belies their lie that guns make you safer.

But if you can't even get simple facts right like, 'what state was it conducted in", I really can't take any other critiques you have of it seriously. You are clearly not a SME on the matter.

I've beaten you about this in the past, and I will continue to beat you on it. But keep jerking yourself off thinking of your "gotcha" moment. its probably the only joy you are getting in your miserable, hate filled life. Well, that and Mormon bashing.

No, guy, you repeat the same tired NRA talking points, like you had an original idea.

The real test that Kellerman got it right. The NRA went into FULL PANIC MODE and got the CDC out of the gun study business.

Now, if you are someone who knows a study got it wrong, you repeat the study and get a different result. You validate or invalidate the findings. That's the scientific method, which if you were an engineer like you claim, you'd know.

If a material failed a stress test, you wouldn't "never, ever do that test again". You do it a few more times and see if you got the same result.

 

[martybegan]

This isn't going to work with me JoeBlow, I was off by one State, and for some reason that makes you think you can ignore all the other pertinent issues with the so call Study,.

Yes, when you get a REALLY major fact wrong, that tells me you aren't that familiar with the details of the study. You just don't like it because it says something you don't want to hear (That most gun deaths are people being killed with a gun that someone in the home owned).

Of course, the gun nuts HATE this study, because it belies their lie that guns make you safer.

But if you can't even get simple facts right like, 'what state was it conducted in", I really can't take any other critiques you have of it seriously. You are clearly not a SME on the matter.

I've beaten you about this in the past, and I will continue to beat you on it. But keep jerking yourself off thinking of your "gotcha" moment. its probably the only joy you are getting in your miserable, hate filled life. Well, that and Mormon bashing.

No, guy, you repeat the same tired NRA talking points, like you had an original idea.

The real test that Kellerman got it right. The NRA went into FULL PANIC MODE and got the CDC out of the gun study business.

Now, if you are someone who knows a study got it wrong, you repeat the study and get a different result. You validate or invalidate the findings. That's the scientific method, which if you were an engineer like you claim, you'd know.

If a material failed a stress test, you wouldn't "never, ever do that test again". You do it a few more times and see if you got the same result.

Kellerman was a moron, and you are the only idiot that still refers to that flawed piece of garbage.

If you could prove your shit, why do you need government $$ to prove it? The FBI publishes the national data on homicides, and the CDC has deaths by other causes. the data is out there, why does the government have to pay for it?

Testing materials is a hard test, with actual physical results. Kellerman was a date study, and a flawed one at that.

Using Kellerman outside its location for anything would be like using wind patterns in Omaha to design a wind farm in Rochester.

 

[JoeB131]

Kellerman was a moron, and you are the only idiot that still refers to that flawed piece of garbage.

If you could prove your shit, why do you need government $$ to prove it? The FBI publishes the national data on homicides, and the CDC has deaths by other causes. the data is out there, why does the government have to pay for it?

Dude, you are sputtering. It costs money to conduct research studies. You have to review files, interview witnesses, do background.

Now, looking at the data we have- 33,000 gun deaths, but only 700 police shootings and 200 civilian shootings are ruled as Justified, it's not hard to get to Kellerman's number. But, yeah, we need to actually do the study...

The only people who don't ask questions are those who don't want the answers.

 

[martybegan]

Kellerman was a moron, and you are the only idiot that still refers to that flawed piece of garbage.

If you could prove your shit, why do you need government $$ to prove it? The FBI publishes the national data on homicides, and the CDC has deaths by other causes. the data is out there, why does the government have to pay for it?

Dude, you are sputtering. It costs money to conduct research studies. You have to review files, interview witnesses, do background.

Now, looking at the data we have- 33,000 gun deaths, but only 700 police shootings and 200 civilian shootings are ruled as Justified, it's not hard to get to Kellerman's number. But, yeah, we need to actually do the study...

The only people who don't ask questions are those who don't want the answers.

Go to Mike Bloomberg, he's a gun control freak and has deep pockets.

And again, kellerman is junk science, nothing more or less.

and you keep adding suicides, which don't count.

 

[JoeB131]

Go to Mike Bloomberg, he's a gun control freak and has deep pockets.

And again, kellerman is junk science, nothing more or less.

and you keep adding suicides, which don't count.

People who;ve lost family members to suicide would disagree. A death is a death. We have 33K of them because of your fetish.

 

[martybegan]

Go to Mike Bloomberg, he's a gun control freak and has deep pockets.

And again, kellerman is junk science, nothing more or less.

and you keep adding suicides, which don't count.

People who;ve lost family members to suicide would disagree. A death is a death. We have 33K of them because of your fetish.

All of the people I know have usually went with hanging, so to me it isn't the method that is a concern, its the action.

You use suicide as one of your multiple excuses to disarm law abiding citizens and place all use of legal force with the government, and you still would have illegal force using criminals.

 

[JoeB131]

All of the people I know have usually went with hanging, so to me it isn't the method that is a concern, its the action.

You use suicide as one of your multiple excuses to disarm law abiding citizens and place all use of legal force with the government, and you still would have illegal force using criminals.

most suicides happen with guns, because they are too easy to get and use.

I don't worry about the "criminals", so much as the law abiding nuts who are able to get guns and snap one day.

The fact is, every time we have a mass shooting, it's someone everyone knew was nuts, who was able to get a gun, anyway.

If you are saying that the only way to keep guns away from the nuts is to take everyone's guns, I'm down with that, because you don't need them.

If you can come up with a way that keeps the guns away from the nuts and still lets you compensate for your.. um... shortcomings, I'd be happy to listen.

But right now, you are of the position that 33K gun deaths are an acceptable tradeoff. I'm not. I don't see the benefit.

 

[martybegan]

All of the people I know have usually went with hanging, so to me it isn't the method that is a concern, its the action.

You use suicide as one of your multiple excuses to disarm law abiding citizens and place all use of legal force with the government, and you still would have illegal force using criminals.

most suicides happen with guns, because they are too easy to get and use.

I don't worry about the "criminals", so much as the law abiding nuts who are able to get guns and snap one day.

The fact is, every time we have a mass shooting, it's someone everyone knew was nuts, who was able to get a gun, anyway.

If you are saying that the only way to keep guns away from the nuts is to take everyone's guns, I'm down with that, because you don't need them.

If you can come up with a way that keeps the guns away from the nuts and still lets you compensate for your.. um... shortcomings, I'd be happy to listen.

But right now, you are of the position that 33K gun deaths are an acceptable tradeoff. I'm not. I don't see the benefit.

And they would continue to happen, a person wanting to kill themself will find a way.

Then work on public mental health, not gun control.

You don't get to decide that, fucktard. I won't even consider the argument until the cops leave their guns in lockers at the precinct at the end of each shift, and go home unarmed like the rest of us, same as with any government official.

It's not 33k, its less, suicides don't count.