Trayvon Martin’s Parents Settle Wro...
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#136 Apr 14, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
"Even the NRA no longer disputes Kellerman's findings"?????????
I'd ask you provide proof of that claim.
Just as you believe anyone who disagrees with you has been polluted by the NRA, it's reasonable to assume you have been polluted by Kellerman and the likes of him and the anti-gun possession rhetoric.
I'd add that I highly doubt that you would accept any study as valid when based on only 400 households in any country.
I'm smiling and will continue to do so. The numerical accuracy of Kellerman's "2.7 times" stat is widely considered accurate and valid within academia. The NRA has tried unsuccessfully to dispute or refute that number, however it has remained constant.

You raised a question regarding why more studies have not taken shape to validate Kellermans's claim. It may have lot to do with the fact that studies of this magnitude require a great deal of funding, but secondly and more importantly, Wayne LaPierre and the NRA have over the past 20 years successfully used massive amounts of money and intimidation to stifle any research which might portray (even if accurately) risks associated with handgun ownership. Another little known fact is the NRA and their lobbyists in 1996 were successful in Congress eliminated funding to the CDC for studies related to injuries or deaths related to gun ownership or to promote or advocate gun control.
Linda

United States

#137 Apr 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>That's unfortunate that you have brought out Shaffer in rebuttal to Kellerman because Shaffer is WIDELY known as nothing more than a paid political hack of the NRA. You see you don't really understand the gun debate very well when you find something like Shaffer and realize he works for the NRA. Nice try but Shaffer doesn't pass the smell test and reeks of NRA money and influence. Kellerman's study is valid and his findings has withstood the test of time.
Oh if someone works for the NRA they are automatically wrong no matter what they say. Unless of course they agree with the pipeplayer. How can you argue realistically with this kind of stupid logic. Poor Jason!
Linda

United States

#138 Apr 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
Kellerman a paid political hack? Hhahaha. yeah right. You can't possibly be serious but then again I do believe the NRA has gotten to you. They're experts at polluting people's heads into making them think they need to protect themselves with unlimited numbers of firearms and that the 2nd Amendment is unquestionable and absolute and because of it, the world is a better place. Therefore, I will always smile when I hear or read of another gun owner falling victim in his/her own home, either by taking their own life or being killed by their own gun in their own home, a gun they claim they kept for 'self-protection'. Even the NRA no longer disputes the Kellerman's findings that gun owners are AT LEAST 2.7 times more likely to be victims of homicide by gun in their own homes than households with no guns.
Polluting people's minds? This coming from a turd that smokes dope and wants to legalize pot. Lol! Poor Jason!

“Peace Love”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#139 Apr 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm smiling and will continue to do so. The numerical accuracy of Kellerman's "2.7 times" stat is widely considered accurate and valid within academia. The NRA has tried unsuccessfully to dispute or refute that number, however it has remained constant.
You raised a question regarding why more studies have not taken shape to validate Kellermans's claim. It may have lot to do with the fact that studies of this magnitude require a great deal of funding, but secondly and more importantly, Wayne LaPierre and the NRA have over the past 20 years successfully used massive amounts of money and intimidation to stifle any research which might portray (even if accurately) risks associated with handgun ownership. Another little known fact is the NRA and their lobbyists in 1996 were successful in Congress eliminated funding to the CDC for studies related to injuries or deaths related to gun ownership or to promote or advocate gun control.
You keep making the same claim and have not supplied any documentation to back it up.
I've encountered plenty of evidence that Kellerman's "study" was flawed and needs further consideration before being accepted as absolute.
So if the NRA has responded in kind to the possible flawed claims made by Kellerman, why is there not a newer report out that validates the original study?
You have now made 2 claims that Kellerman's study is accepted but have provided no links or proof of your claims.
In as much as I hate to do this to you but you have fallen into the same trap a certain group of a common religion have fallen into. Just as the bible can not be used to prove the bible is correct, Kellerman's study can not be used to prove Kellerman's study is correct.

Smile on...it's a very hollow smile...

“Peace Love”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#140 Apr 14, 2013
Linda wrote:
<quoted text>
Polluting people's minds? This coming from a turd that smokes dope and wants to legalize pot. Lol! Poor Jason!
I support the legalization of mj and always have.
That certainly has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Linda

United States

#141 Apr 14, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>I support the legalization of mj and always have.
That certainly has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
He was being sarcastic so was I. But if you want to be factual maybe you should look at the statistics on gun crimes perpetrated under the influence. I think you will find them extremely high. The subject is about gun crimes I thought. While I may agree with some of your positions agreeing to legalizing drugs is your mistake. If ever legalized it should be highly restricted.

“Peace Love”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#142 Apr 14, 2013
Linda wrote:
<quoted text>
He was being sarcastic so was I. But if you want to be factual maybe you should look at the statistics on gun crimes perpetrated under the influence. I think you will find them extremely high. The subject is about gun crimes I thought. While I may agree with some of your positions agreeing to legalizing drugs is your mistake. If ever legalized it should be highly restricted.
Yes it does seem drugs are a major influence in the commission of crimes but you fail to submit evidence that mj was a major contributor to those crimes.
In fact, you can not provide any evidence to prove that hemp, not cannibus, has had any such affect on society at all...yet they are both consilidated as "drugs".
There are many much more harmful drugs available via prescription that are just that...more harmful and dangerous and addictive.
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#143 Apr 14, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep making the same claim and have not supplied any documentation to back it up.
I've encountered plenty of evidence that Kellerman's "study" was flawed and needs further consideration before being accepted as absolute.
So if the NRA has responded in kind to the possible flawed claims made by Kellerman, why is there not a newer report out that validates the original study?
You have now made 2 claims that Kellerman's study is accepted but have provided no links or proof of your claims.
In as much as I hate to do this to you but you have fallen into the same trap a certain group of a common religion have fallen into. Just as the bible can not be used to prove the bible is correct, Kellerman's study can not be used to prove Kellerman's study is correct.
Smile on...it's a very hollow smile...
Absolute is a pretty high standard, notwithstanding vodka, wouldn't you say?

While not admitting there are no subsequent studies supporting Kellerman (there may be), I did give you a couple major reasons why there MAY not be any or many.

And if you're demanding 'absolute' produce proof that Kellerman's claims are true, you provide similar proof of NRAs hired gun, Mr. Shaffer claims are at least as true.

You seem to be somewhat of an expert, or at least highly opinionated, not only the gun control issue but 'religion' particularly Christianity. How did you become so versed in these topics? Home schooled?

“Peace Love”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#144 Apr 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolute is a pretty high standard, notwithstanding vodka, wouldn't you say?
While not admitting there are no subsequent studies supporting Kellerman (there may be), I did give you a couple major reasons why there MAY not be any or many.
And if you're demanding 'absolute' produce proof that Kellerman's claims are true, you provide similar proof of NRAs hired gun, Mr. Shaffer claims are at least as true.
You seem to be somewhat of an expert, or at least highly opinionated, not only the gun control issue but 'religion' particularly Christianity. How did you become so versed in these topics? Home schooled?
You were the first to make a claim and are apparently standing by it. That would leave you in the driver's seat when it comes to proof. Please back up the claims you've made or admit you can't.
Shame on you...you should know better than that...
I've asked for validation for 2 items that you have not yet addressed. I'll gladly repeat them for you if necessary.
As far as my views regarding religion...that's another subject and another thread...start one if you feel it necessary.
Linda

United States

#145 Apr 14, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it does seem drugs are a major influence in the commission of crimes but you fail to submit evidence that mj was a major contributor to those crimes.
In fact, you can not provide any evidence to prove that hemp, not cannibus, has had any such affect on society at all...yet they are both consilidated as "drugs".
There are many much more harmful drugs available via prescription that are just that...more harmful and dangerous and addictive.
I do not need to waste time providing proof of that claim. For you or anyone else to deny it would be pure ignorance. If you want a stat look it up. That aside, I agree with every point you just made. So you are saying mj only makes some stupid and only kills some. So you say it is fine to legalize it. But for the taxpayer that has to support the few medical affects, for the few people that are killed, or for the few people that are affected in any other way by a mj addicts brain dead decisions, to bad. For anyone that has a different choice drug, to bad. Mean while we will take other rights away from others so you can get high and not hurt yourself or others.
It is a conflict arguing that mental health is the problem of these mass killings and that mental health should be looked into. Then the same people saying lets legalize mind altering substances for recreational uses.
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#146 Apr 14, 2013
Hahahaha ... here ya go :) < <that means too funny.
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#147 Apr 14, 2013
Hey ... BTW My Wiggley you brought up religion on this thread, I didn't. Something about a "certain group of a common religion" in your previous reply... assuming you have some sort of beef with organized religion ...
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#148 Apr 14, 2013
Linda wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not need to waste time providing proof of that claim. For you or anyone else to deny it would be pure ignorance. If you want a stat look it up. That aside, I agree with every point you just made. So you are saying mj only makes some stupid and only kills some. So you say it is fine to legalize it. But for the taxpayer that has to support the few medical affects, for the few people that are killed, or for the few people that are affected in any other way by a mj addicts brain dead decisions, to bad. For anyone that has a different choice drug, to bad. Mean while we will take other rights away from others so you can get high and not hurt yourself or others.
It is a conflict arguing that mental health is the problem of these mass killings and that mental health should be looked into. Then the same people saying lets legalize mind altering substances for recreational uses.
Am I totally off base here, but when reading the quoted text above does anyone else get the impression it was written possibly by someone who speaks in broken English ???? Or at least someone not overly versed in the English language, either verbal or written? I'm thinking the originator may possibly be of far eastern in descent? lol

“Peace Love”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#149 Apr 14, 2013
Linda wrote:
<quoted text>
I do not need to waste time providing proof of that claim. For you or anyone else to deny it would be pure ignorance. If you want a stat look it up. That aside, I agree with every point you just made. So you are saying mj only makes some stupid and only kills some. So you say it is fine to legalize it. But for the taxpayer that has to support the few medical affects, for the few people that are killed, or for the few people that are affected in any other way by a mj addicts brain dead decisions, to bad. For anyone that has a different choice drug, to bad. Mean while we will take other rights away from others so you can get high and not hurt yourself or others.
It is a conflict arguing that mental health is the problem of these mass killings and that mental health should be looked into. Then the same people saying lets legalize mind altering substances for recreational uses.
First and foremost...do you even know why hemp and mj are listed as drugs and why this is wrong???
Second, do you know that the most dangerous addictive drugs are already on the market as legal prescription drugs that are being abused??...Rush Limbaugh come to mind???

“Peace Love”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#150 Apr 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
Hey ... BTW My Wiggley you brought up religion on this thread, I didn't. Something about a "certain group of a common religion" in your previous reply... assuming you have some sort of beef with organized religion ...
Yep...I clearly noted my reasoning for using the bible as an example...what's your beef??
I said and will repeat, using the bible as proof for the accuracy of the bible does not constitute proof the bible is correct or accurate.
The same holds true for Kellerman's "study".
I did not mean to bring religion into this debate other than to make a point to you...apparently you can't figure out the obvious??

Or should I be glad you are beginning to see things correctly??
Linda

United States

#151 Apr 14, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>First and foremost...do you even know why hemp and mj are listed as drugs and why this is wrong???
Second, do you know that the most dangerous addictive drugs are already on the market as legal prescription drugs that are being abused??...Rush Limbaugh come to mind???
Mj is mind altering, and other drugs are mind altering. That is what matters when talking about being used while committing crimes. Names of people that have used drugs and definitions do not matter. Majority of America have been on drugs at some point of their life legal or not.
You and most that are trying to get it legalized are not trying to get it legalized for any medical reason. You are trying to get it legalized for recreational list. If you are not honest about that then the rest of your argument has already fallen.
Linda

United States

#152 Apr 14, 2013
pipedream wrote:
<quoted text>Am I totally off base here, but when reading the quoted text above does anyone else get the impression it was written possibly by someone who speaks in broken English ???? Or at least someone not overly versed in the English language, either verbal or written? I'm thinking the originator may possibly be of far eastern in descent? lol
You are off base all the time turd brain! Jason you need to stick to dancing.
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#153 Apr 14, 2013
You sure demand alotta proof there Wiggley. What - the Bible taint nuff proof for ya? You need somethin' more absolute lester? lol <spits>

/s/ walter brennan
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#154 Apr 14, 2013
And now we bring the latest developments in the Trayvon Martin murder case .... BREAKING NEWS

Trayvon Martin Target: Police Officer Ron King Fired For Bringing Offensive Target To Gun Range

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/tray... |maing5|dl2|sec1_lnk2%26pLid%3 D298219

WOW. this should be front page news!
pipedream

West Bloomfield, MI

#155 Apr 14, 2013
Hahah. Is the Good Sgt. King a skin head or member of the AB? striking resemblance I'd say. I'd say nobody gonna touch that boy for awhile <Mr. King is seen sitting in a chair at a table in the interrogation room, and then poof, he disappears> lol.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Local News Women (Apr '09) 13 hr WMNewsFan 3,122
Woman charged with raping dog Dec 5 Oracle 1
Quote of the Day (Feb '08) Nov 29 Kelly Joanne Cannon 485
News 'Okay to be White' signs popping up in Grand Haven Nov 27 Sad Bastard 4
boycott alabama now (Dec '08) Nov 26 Sattva Virginius 291
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Nov 26 Coachman47 1,192
News Holland's Hispanic population growing (May '08) Nov 21 District 1 400

Grand Rapids Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages