Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article ,
says...


He dad already put in a new elevator to get handicapped people on the
roof and made a number of other accommodations. This was the last
straw.
So your answer was just to abandon a couple hundred square feet of a
small restaurant. Would the city stop collecting taxes on that
footage?


Now you're on about taxes. Hey, you're the one who said the place had
"dozens" of tables and the guy closed down instead or removing 4-5 table
from use. Dumb - on any level.

Probably cheaped out on refrigeration, food sanitation, and restroom
cleaning too.

Why would you assume that? You sound like you are just making **** up
now., This was a very high dollar restaurant


Because the guy is dumb if your story is accurate.
Saying it is "very high dollar restaurant" only makes him dumber.
More likely, the place wasn't making money anyway, or the guy closed it
because he was tired of being a "businessman."

The community is safer.
Where did you get that story? Some loonitarian website that has an
"ADA Atrocities" section?

It was all over the news here for over a year. It wasn't even a case
of local people complaining. It was an out of town action group,
driving around looking for something to complain about.

You provided no cites, so I can only go by what you said.
Closing a SUCCESSFUL "very high dollar restaurant" with dozens of tables
because the ADA says 4-5 tables don't comply is just ****ing stupid
business-wise.
But plenty of people will cut off their nose to spite their face for
political reason.
His right. At least - I hope - he didn't arson it for insurance.
BTW, you said it was "historical."
What happened to the building?

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:51:52 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

What might that "significant" number be, expressed as a percentage of
those killed in vehicular accidents?


That is hard to measure since the act is not as overt as hanging
yourself or eating a gun

Driving 100 MPH on a winding road may mean you are having the "be or
not to be" moment but you are just leaving the answer up to chance and
luck.
Toss some alcohol in there and it even becomes murkier.

Cops, families and insurance companies are reluctant to call it
anything but an accident.

Are lot more death by car suicides than are listed. Much easier for the
heirs to collect insurance from a car death. I remember a lot of years
ago, a man decided to commit suicide near here. Was US50 instead of I580.
He survived driving the wrong way into another car. Killed family of 5 in
the other car. An accidental shooting is probably as responsible action
than driving drunk.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

Perhaps the NRA doesn't give a **** one way or the other.


Just don't seem right letting NRA members, and honest, upright gun-
owners be treated like smokers.
Just don't seem right.
If the NRA won't stand up for the right for a legal and upright gun
owner to have a cup of coffee with his legal gun on his hip, who will?
Treating a gun-owner like you would a smoker! Disgraceful!
It ain't right, I'm telling you, it just ain't right.
What if somebody comes in to shoot the place up, and kill everybody?
Hell, that just happened in that DC Navy yard.
But I'm willing to give the NRA a chance here. It's still early.

Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they want.

No they don't! You would still see Whites Only signs in Maryland.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article , says...

On 9/19/13 8:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 9/19/13 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

Perhaps the NRA doesn't give a **** one way or the other.


Just don't seem right letting NRA members, and honest, upright gun-
owners be treated like smokers.
Just don't seem right.
If the NRA won't stand up for the right for a legal and upright gun
owner to have a cup of coffee with his legal gun on his hip, who will?
Treating a gun-owner like you would a smoker! Disgraceful!
It ain't right, I'm telling you, it just ain't right.
What if somebody comes in to shoot the place up, and kill everybody?
Hell, that just happened in that DC Navy yard.
But I'm willing to give the NRA a chance here. It's still early.

Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they want.



Uh, no.

Uh, yes, as long as it's not in violation of any specific Civil Rights
law, i.e. racial discrimination, etc. Anyone can be determined to be
persona non grata at the discretion of the business owner if he/she
feels that person is or may be disruptive to the business.



That's right...you can't legally discriminate and therefore private
businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone they want
without a reason that doesn't violate the law.

So, the answer remains, "Uh, no."

It wouldn't suprise me if you were banned from business because of your generally bad
disposition.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

In article , says...

On 9/19/13 10:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 9/19/13 8:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 9/19/13 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...

In article ,
says...

Perhaps the NRA doesn't give a **** one way or the other.


Just don't seem right letting NRA members, and honest, upright gun-
owners be treated like smokers.
Just don't seem right.
If the NRA won't stand up for the right for a legal and upright gun
owner to have a cup of coffee with his legal gun on his hip, who will?
Treating a gun-owner like you would a smoker! Disgraceful!
It ain't right, I'm telling you, it just ain't right.
What if somebody comes in to shoot the place up, and kill everybody?
Hell, that just happened in that DC Navy yard.
But I'm willing to give the NRA a chance here. It's still early.

Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they want.



Uh, no.

Uh, yes, as long as it's not in violation of any specific Civil Rights
law, i.e. racial discrimination, etc. Anyone can be determined to be
persona non grata at the discretion of the business owner if he/she
feels that person is or may be disruptive to the business.



That's right...you can't legally discriminate and therefore private
businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone they want
without a reason that doesn't violate the law.

So, the answer remains, "Uh, no."

As a business person, I can refuse to do business with a person no
matter what. I don't have to take ANY job if I don't want to.


You have to think a bit wider than your immediate surrounding or
personal business.

As one example, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in
hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public
accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

So, if you ran a diner, you could not legally refuse to serve blacks,
Jews, Armenians, et cetera, because they were black, Jewish, or
Armenian. You might be able to refuse service to PsychoSnotty because he
is an asshole, but I am not sure about that.

How is a diner involved in interstate commerce?

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 14:09:03 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

In article ,
says...


He dad already put in a new elevator to get handicapped people on the
roof and made a number of other accommodations. This was the last
straw.
So your answer was just to abandon a couple hundred square feet of a
small restaurant. Would the city stop collecting taxes on that
footage?


Now you're on about taxes. Hey, you're the one who said the place had
"dozens" of tables and the guy closed down instead or removing 4-5 table
from use. Dumb - on any level.

At that point it was just the principle.



Probably cheaped out on refrigeration, food sanitation, and restroom
cleaning too.

Why would you assume that? You sound like you are just making **** up
now., This was a very high dollar restaurant


Because the guy is dumb if your story is accurate.
Saying it is "very high dollar restaurant" only makes him dumber.
More likely, the place wasn't making money anyway, or the guy closed it
because he was tired of being a "businessman."

He certainly didn't have as much money as he had a while ago after the
other changes he had to make. Elevators are not cheap.

The community is safer.
Where did you get that story? Some loonitarian website that has an
"ADA Atrocities" section?

It was all over the news here for over a year. It wasn't even a case
of local people complaining. It was an out of town action group,
driving around looking for something to complain about.

You provided no cites, so I can only go by what you said.
Closing a SUCCESSFUL "very high dollar restaurant" with dozens of tables
because the ADA says 4-5 tables don't comply is just ****ing stupid
business-wise.

I tend to agree. I would have put a huge display up there pointing out
how stupid some government regulation can get.
He was just done.

But plenty of people will cut off their nose to spite their face for
political reason.
His right. At least - I hope - he didn't arson it for insurance.

Look in the Ft Myers archives for Peters la Cuisine

He reopened in another place a few years ago so you may get off topic
hits. This was a while ago.

BTW, you said it was "historical."
What happened to the building?

For all I know, they tore it down. That whole area got renovated.
Strange stuff happens when the government is involved
I can look into it if you are really interested. Wayne might know, it
is right across from the Ft Myers Yacht basin that just got
reconfigured.

We had a judge out here who finally cracked down on a lot of the ADA
lawsuit business. One claimant went all over the state and his Lawyer
threaten to sue if not an out of court settlement. Judge finally told the
ADA claimant that he was going to jail if he filed another claim. Was
making a huge income a year from the extortion. The parking lot for my
insurance agent, is listed as private parking. No ADA spots. Reason.
Some guy was suing insurance agents all over the state if no handicapped
parking. Even if they had a lot with only 2-3 spaces.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 9/19/13 2:54 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
m...

On 9/19/13 8:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:


"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 9/19/13 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article
,
says...

In article ,
says...

Perhaps the NRA doesn't give a **** one way or the other.


Just don't seem right letting NRA members, and honest, upright
gun-
owners be treated like smokers.
Just don't seem right.
If the NRA won't stand up for the right for a legal and upright
gun
owner to have a cup of coffee with his legal gun on his hip, who
will?
Treating a gun-owner like you would a smoker! Disgraceful!
It ain't right, I'm telling you, it just ain't right.
What if somebody comes in to shoot the place up, and kill
everybody?
Hell, that just happened in that DC Navy yard.
But I'm willing to give the NRA a chance here. It's still early.

Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they
want.



Uh, no.

Uh, yes, as long as it's not in violation of any specific Civil
Rights
law, i.e. racial discrimination, etc. Anyone can be determined to
be
persona non grata at the discretion of the business owner if he/she
feels that person is or may be disruptive to the business.



That's right...you can't legally discriminate and therefore private
businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone they want
without a reason that doesn't violate the law.

So, the answer remains, "Uh, no."

Sorry Harry. You are wrong on this one. I've booted people out of
the
guitar shop who weren't violating any laws but were being total
asses.
Not many, but a handful over the 4 plus years I had the shop.
After
the first experience I checked the legality of my actions with a
lawyer. Perfectly legal, and within my rights as the owner of the
business.

I've also seen professionals banned from places of business .... in
this
case not mine, but one I worked for. Again, perfectly legal and
within
the rights of the business owner.




I said you couldn't discriminate for reasons that violated the law
and,
also, I doubt your guitar show came under the umbrella of a public
accommodation.

Words are important.

--------------------------------

Good grief. My initial first sentence following my, "Uh, yes" in
response to your "Uh, no" was:

",,, as long as it's not in violation of any specific Civil Rights
law, i.e. racial discrimination, etc."

and, yes, a guitar shop, a pet food store, a bar, a supermarket are
*all* considered public places unless they are registered as private
clubs with membership requirements. You can restrict entry or
boot someone out if you determine it to be necessary, again as long as
you are not violating any law in doing so. There's nothing illegal
about booting someone out the door if they are being obnoxious or
disruptive. At least that's how it is up here. Your mileage may
vary.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 19:30:54 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Sep 2013 23:38:46 -0700, jps wrote:


Researchers in the United States claim to have established a
convincing statistical link between gun ownership and homicide,
according to a new study.

The study, which appears in the American Journal of Public Health,
challenges the National Rifle Association’s claim that increased gun
ownership does not lead to higher levels of gun violence.

Covering 30 years from 1981 and all 50 US states, it determined that
for every one percentage point in the prevalence of gun ownership in a
given state, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent.

In the absence of state-level data on household gun ownership, the
study used a proxy variable — the percentage of a state’s suicides
committed with a firearm — that has been validated in previous
research.

The study, led by Boston University community health sciences
professor Michael Siegel, is the first of its kind since the December
2012 mass shooting of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
Newtown, Connecticut.

“In the wake of the tragic shooting in Newtown … many states are
considering legislation to control firearm-related deaths,” said
Siegel in a statement.

“This research is the strongest to date to document that states with
higher levels of gun ownership have disproportionately large numbers
of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” he said.

“It suggests that measures which succeed in decreasing the overall
prevalence of guns will lower firearm homicide rates.”

The study found that, over three decades, the mean estimated
percentage of gun ownership ranged from a low of 25.8 percent in
Hawaii to a high of 76.8 percent in Mississippi, with a national
average of 57.7 percent.

The mean age-adjusted firearm homicide rate stretched from 0.9 percent
per 100,000 in New Hampshire to 1.8 percent in Louisiana, with an
average for all states of four per 100,000.

The study also acknowledged a long-term decline in firearm homicide
for all states, from 5.2 per 100,000 in 1981 to 3.5 per 100,000 in
2010.

Firearms were involved in 11,078 homicides of the 16,259 homicides in
the United States in 2010, the latest year for which data is
available, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.

Cite?

Loogy?
--

John H.

Hope you're having a great day!

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...
On 9/19/13 10:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 9/19/13 8:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 9/19/13 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
Perhaps the NRA doesn't give a **** one way or the other.

Just don't seem right letting NRA members, and honest, upright gun-
owners be treated like smokers.
Just don't seem right.
If the NRA won't stand up for the right for a legal and upright gun
owner to have a cup of coffee with his legal gun on his hip, who will?
Treating a gun-owner like you would a smoker! Disgraceful!
It ain't right, I'm telling you, it just ain't right.
What if somebody comes in to shoot the place up, and kill everybody?
Hell, that just happened in that DC Navy yard.
But I'm willing to give the NRA a chance here. It's still early.
Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they want.


Uh, no.

Uh, yes, as long as it's not in violation of any specific Civil Rights
law, i.e. racial discrimination, etc. Anyone can be determined to be
persona non grata at the discretion of the business owner if he/she
feels that person is or may be disruptive to the business.


That's right...you can't legally discriminate and therefore private
businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone they want
without a reason that doesn't violate the law.

So, the answer remains, "Uh, no."
As a business person, I can refuse to do business with a person no
matter what. I don't have to take ANY job if I don't want to.

You have to think a bit wider than your immediate surrounding or
personal business.

As one example, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in
hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public
accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

So, if you ran a diner, you could not legally refuse to serve blacks,
Jews, Armenians, et cetera, because they were black, Jewish, or
Armenian. You might be able to refuse service to PsychoSnotty because he
is an asshole, but I am not sure about that.
I can refuse them service if I so choose. I can't however refuse service
because of their ethnicity, etc. BUT, again, I can refuse them service,
as can any business refuse anyone service.
You don't own your business, Kevin. Do they let you choose who you can
service? Harry's best buddy Donnie posted your personal information and
tried to get people to call your firm so we know you have an employer.

Higher gun ownership equals higher rate of homicide
 

iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 9/19/13 10:56 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article , says...
On 9/19/13 10:19 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
On 9/19/13 8:16 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
...

On 9/19/13 7:57 AM, iBoaterer wrote:
In article ,
says...
In article ,
says...
Perhaps the NRA doesn't give a **** one way or the other.

Just don't seem right letting NRA members, and honest, upright gun-
owners be treated like smokers.
Just don't seem right.
If the NRA won't stand up for the right for a legal and upright gun
owner to have a cup of coffee with his legal gun on his hip, who will?
Treating a gun-owner like you would a smoker! Disgraceful!
It ain't right, I'm telling you, it just ain't right.
What if somebody comes in to shoot the place up, and kill everybody?
Hell, that just happened in that DC Navy yard.
But I'm willing to give the NRA a chance here. It's still early.
Private businesses have the right to deny service to anyone they want.


Uh, no.

Uh, yes, as long as it's not in violation of any specific Civil Rights
law, i.e. racial discrimination, etc. Anyone can be determined to be
persona non grata at the discretion of the business owner if he/she
feels that person is or may be disruptive to the business.


That's right...you can't legally discriminate and therefore private
businesses do not have the right to deny service to anyone they want
without a reason that doesn't violate the law.

So, the answer remains, "Uh, no."
As a business person, I can refuse to do business with a person no
matter what. I don't have to take ANY job if I don't want to.

You have to think a bit wider than your immediate surrounding or
personal business.

As one example, Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits
discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in
hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public
accommodations engaged in interstate commerce.

So, if you ran a diner, you could not legally refuse to serve blacks,
Jews, Armenians, et cetera, because they were black, Jewish, or
Armenian. You might be able to refuse service to PsychoSnotty because he
is an asshole, but I am not sure about that.
I can refuse them service if I so choose. I can't however refuse service
because of their ethnicity, etc. BUT, again, I can refuse them service,
as can any business refuse anyone service.

I don't want this to devolve into one of the usual iBoater-Gregg
episodes. Suffice it to say that your ability if you are in the public
accommodation business to refuse service is not absolute so the answer
remains, "Uh, no." You cannot refuse to do business with a person no
matter what.
Give me one example of someone wanting my services and a MUST say yes.
You can always set the price at a level that will make them go away.
Some people aren't worth the trouble or "profit"...