I’m wading into waters that I really am not familiar with, but I’m relatively confident that you can’t just walk into the store and buy one BECAUSE explosive material, triggers, etc. are, in fact, regulated and/or banned. I get that the whole thing can’t be “regulated” because it’s illegal and/or its parts are…

Alright, fine, I missed the “in” in invalid. Sorry. I get that it was totally clear in your head when you wrote it, but I was distracted by the prior sentence.

Seriously? IEDs have killed far fewer Americans than guns. I’m sure you’re cool with them being unregulated in the US as well. This whole “cars kill more people than guns argument” is dumb, and every rational person knows it. Guns are inanimate objects... except any time they’re used. And yeah, I know the 2d amendment…

This is a valid point. I have not personally conducted a controlled study with a large sample size, and submitted an article to a well-respected peer-reviewed journal. I’ll definitely shut up now.

Thanks. I appreciate the break. Math’s hard. I can barely count to G. Sorry my unpaid editing isn’t up to snuff, and that my point was completely lost on you as a result. Do you want to make fun of my double spacing as well? My punctuation not precise enough for you either?

Doesn’t “coed” as a noun typically refer to female college students?

The fact that the 78% (or 77%) stat still gets trotted out shows that advocates really ARE bad at math, or more precisely, statistics. Or are liars. When you actually, you know, control for variables, the gap is much smaller. As a moderate, the continued blatant lying just makes me want to ignore you.

“There can be furniture to split, joint checking accounts to dissolve, shared debt, often property, and then, of course, pets—or even children had out of wedlock.”