Talk About Tennis 2.0

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:03 am Here are the top states for gun sales in 2020

State Total gun sales in 2020
Illinois 7,455,065
Kentucky 3,330,462
Texas 2,235,281
Indiana 1,935,587
Florida 1,912,204
California 1,601,054
Pennsylvania 1,452,921
Utah 1,216,773

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nic ... e.pdf/view

^ The only reason Texas is way down in 3rd place is because everyone there already has 5 guns, and so they buy less.
I think a survey of the number of gun owners per capita in each state would have Texas as the runaway winner.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:26 am Illinois has a population of 12.74 MM. So, roughly, 6 out of every 10 people in Illinois bought a firearm in 2020.
No reason for concern, right?

^ 6 out of 10 people bought a gun legally in Illinois in 2020.
Factor in underground gun sales, and it probably goes up to 12 people out of every 10 bought a gun in 2020!

If only US gun crazies were as enthusiastic in defending their Constitution's other 26 amendments they'd be getting somewhere

the Moz wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 1:36 am If only US gun crazies were as enthusiastic in defending their Constitution's other 26 amendments they'd be getting somewhere

On. The. Money.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:26 am

ti-amie wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 12:03 am Here are the top states for gun sales in 2020

State Total gun sales in 2020
Illinois 7,455,065
Kentucky 3,330,462
Texas 2,235,281
Indiana 1,935,587
Florida 1,912,204
California 1,601,054
Pennsylvania 1,452,921
Utah 1,216,773

https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/nic ... e.pdf/view

Illinois has a population of 12.74 MM. So, roughly, 6 out of every 10 people in Illinois bought a firearm in 2020.
No reason for concern, right?

More likely is that a few hundred thousand people bought 12+ guns.

I am not an AOC fan by any stretch of the imagination. In this I am in total agreement with her though.

Elon Musk has more than a passing interest in restrictions being put on trades. This is a long but very good history of what happened and his role in it. This is the format I received this in. I viewed it in my browser.

[/quote]

Yes it is
I was very interested in your post. I find it, not an attack on academia, but certainly not supportive of the institution. So, I have two questions:
1. If we do not support "scientific and evidence based" analysis of the issues, and perhaps the reaching of conclusions based on those methods, what methods to use? Empirical? Non-evidence based? Assume that your assertion that "they have never expressed an interest" in these issues (bold above) is correct and true. If they are now expressing such interest, isn't that progress? Should we not, at least explore those venues?
2. What if this group is the one that is right? Or do we depart from the default mode that they are wrong, and CANNOT be correct? Wouldn't we be, in doing so, proving them right? The PC, CSJ position is so entrenched that we cannot even discuss (or they cannot offer) a position in which we question the actions innate to PC/CSJ? To me, it becomes borderline Gödelian: CW, an organization that questions Cancel Culture, has to be declared irrelevant a priori and their position must be cancelled and not heard of because they go against PC/CSJ/Cancel Culture as part of their platform.

I find academia to have something that very few other institutions can claim: a verifiable track record of progress over the time-span of its existence (universities since their foundations). If I were a betting man, I would not bet against our methods. So far, they have been very successful.
[/quote]

I apologize for not being around the last 24 hours or so. Work interfered.

I am still marinating myself and struggling to articulate a response that actually makes sense. My apologies. But I am not ignoring you.

You can also get blackballed for taking a knee in silent protest but I digress...

I've been retired for a few years but when I was working if anyone threatened harm to a co worker they'd be out of a job. The party doing business as the GOP has a problem. Instead of rushing down to Perv-a Lago to kiss Tiny's, uh, ring, McCarthy needs to handle the problems this woman is creating. Speaker Pelosi moved to protect her caucus member. It's all she can do.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:21 pm I've been retired for a few years but when I was working if anyone threatened harm to a co worker they'd be out of a job. The party doing business as the GOP has a problem. Instead of rushing down to Perv-a Lago to kiss Tiny's, uh, ring, McCarthy needs to handle the problems this woman is creating. Speaker Pelosi moved to protect her caucus member. It's all she can do.

Right? Any organization wort its salt (including TAT) has some sort of Code of Conduct and this type of conduct is an immediately fireable offense.

I hope Cori Bush is getting a better and bigger office.