Xylene
NightMist
Remind me that next time I get a client who wants me to do a design on
leather with a paint that will bond with the glaze, to either say no
or buy a respirator first.
I have two fans going, and the tartan clad elephant from the Top Value
stamps trading books still kept appearing in corners of the work.
Why it would keep doing that is beyond me, why my brain invoked it at
all is a mystery.
My eyeballs are numb. Maybe I should take a nap. Maybe I should have
gone with the toulene based stuff.
Maybe now would be a good time to post in Discordian forums.
NightMist
--
Nothing has been the same since that house fell on my sister.
Dark Phoenix
"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48bef739...@news.madbbs.com...
>
> Remind me that next time I get a client who wants me to do a design on
> leather with a paint that will bond with the glaze, to either say no
> or buy a respirator first.
>
> I have two fans going, and the tartan clad elephant from the Top Value
> stamps trading books still kept appearing in corners of the work.
> Why it would keep doing that is beyond me, why my brain invoked it at
> all is a mystery.
>
> My eyeballs are numb. Maybe I should take a nap. Maybe I should have
> gone with the toulene based stuff.
> Maybe now would be a good time to post in Discordian forums.
Xylene is evillllllllll! But toluene isn't exactly good for you, either.
Toluene is actually harder on your liver.
Naptha is the worst, though. My ex once sprayed too much stain blocker
without a respirator, and solved all the world's problems while laying on
the lawn giggling for over an hour. Be careful!
--
Laurie Brown, Dark Phoenix
dark_p...@netw.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/103910/laurie_brown.html
"To destroy the Western tradition of independent thought, it is not
necessary to burn books. All we have to do is leave them unread for a couple
of generations."
--Robert Maynard Hutchens.
Nyx
@news.madbbs.com:
> I have two fans going, and the tartan clad elephant from the Top Value
> stamps trading books still kept appearing in corners of the work.
You're old. No one under 30 would even understand that sentence.
Nyx
--
http://www.sxxxy.org -- celebrity sex news
http://www.whippi.com --bdsm blog
whisky-dave
"Dark Phoenix" <dark_p...@netw.com> wrote in message
news:0NCdnc4l2vWOoSLV...@povn.com...
>
> Naptha is the worst, though. My ex once sprayed too much stain blocker
> without a respirator, and solved all the world's problems while laying on
> the lawn giggling for over an hour. Be careful!
Wow great, I'll have a pint please :-)
NightMist
>night...@gmail.com (NightMist) wrote in news:48bef739.51670451
>@news.madbbs.com:
>
>> I have two fans going, and the tartan clad elephant from the Top Value
>> stamps trading books still kept appearing in corners of the work.
>
>You're old. No one under 30 would even understand that sentence.
>
Well, I am younger than dirt anyway.
I was arguing with my mom about wearing black and dressing like a
pirate in the 70's. She never got over that by the way. I am a gramma
and my mom is still giving me shit about what I wear.
NightMist
embracing goth goodness since before it was called goth
NightMist
<dark_p...@netw.com> wrote:
>
>"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:48bef739...@news.madbbs.com...
>>
>> Remind me that next time I get a client who wants me to do a design on
>> leather with a paint that will bond with the glaze, to either say no
>> or buy a respirator first.
>>
>> I have two fans going, and the tartan clad elephant from the Top Value
>> stamps trading books still kept appearing in corners of the work.
>> Why it would keep doing that is beyond me, why my brain invoked it at
>> all is a mystery.
>>
>> My eyeballs are numb. Maybe I should take a nap. Maybe I should have
>> gone with the toulene based stuff.
>> Maybe now would be a good time to post in Discordian forums.
>
>Xylene is evillllllllll! But toluene isn't exactly good for you, either.
>Toluene is actually harder on your liver.
"isn't it true
that sniffing glue
can damage your liver and kidneys?"
OK, that _really_ dated me.
>
>Naptha is the worst, though. My ex once sprayed too much stain blocker
>without a respirator, and solved all the world's problems while laying on
>the lawn giggling for over an hour. Be careful!
>
I had a girlfriend once who was a motor head. Once while working with
some other motorheads she got stuck cleaning a bunch of parts with
that aerosol carb cleaner. She was a giggling puddle of
hallucinations when they drove her home. That I believe was toulene.
I used naptha trying to get red kool-aid out of a tan carpet once.
Total failure on the stain removal, no buzz either. Must be it wasn't
a high enough concentration.
From showing some friends from Manchester UK around, I rather gather
that a lot of the goodies you can buy at the hardware store here are
not available over there. We popped into True Value to look for some
tools the male part of the couple thought he could find here at a
better price. They were just stunned by the chemicals shelf over in
the paint department, and oddly enough the loads for nail guns just
hanging on a J hook in front of god and everybody.
Peter H. Coffin
> From showing some friends from Manchester UK around, I rather gather
> that a lot of the goodies you can buy at the hardware store here are
> not available over there. We popped into True Value to look for some
> tools the male part of the couple thought he could find here at a
> better price. They were just stunned by the chemicals shelf over in
> the paint department, and oddly enough the loads for nail guns just
> hanging on a J hook in front of god and everybody.
Evidence that the UK will never really get rid of its firearm problem.
We don't have to lock up the nailgun supplied because .38 ammunition
is so much less crap.
--
63. Bulk trash will be disposed of in incinerators, not compactors. And they
will be kept hot, with none of that nonsense about flames going through
accessible tunnels at predictable intervals.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Elder
says...
> They were just stunned by the chemicals shelf over in
> the paint department, and oddly enough the loads for nail guns just
> hanging on a J hook in front of god and everybody.
>
If you want acetone you need to go to a pharmasist for a small ammount
or a trade decorator supply for a bulk ammount.
You can buy meths and white spirit at the hardware sheds, but denatured
alcohol is another pharmacy special or from a bulk chemical supplier.
We can by caustic soda, but again that tends to be at the hardware/diy
sheds.
Nailguns can be bought, but they tend to be battery operated or
compressor operated at the sheds, but if you buy online from a trade
suppliers you can get piezo ignition propane powered ones legally. Those
things can punch a nail through a 2" concrete block panel. They do have
pressure switches and light sensors on though. so you can't just hold
back the pressure switch.
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
Elder
> the paint department,
>
gallons of cellulose thinners, usually xylene or toluene, and spray cans
of carb cleaner in all car parts shops.
The stuff is out there, just not on supermarket shelves.
It is only recently that a large chain of motorparts stores started
stocking those DIY aircon regas kits, and they have been heavily
criticised for it on the grounds of safety.
Edward Scissorhands
> It is only recently that a large chain of motorparts stores started
> stocking those DIY aircon regas kits, and they have been heavily
> criticised for it on the grounds of safety.
The comedy used-car messes that will result from silly old idiots in
LPG-powered "Jags" recharging their R12 systems will be worth it, though...
EdwardS (The LPG bit is only there because anyone running an old Jaguar
on LPG is clearly penny-pinching and should not be running a complex
British luxury car)
--
Edward Scissorhands |\ _,,,---,,_
Eclectic Geek, Goth, Citroenist - EdwardS /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,
E-Mail: EdwardS<at>dmc12.demon.co.uk |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'::.
Homepage: http://www.dmc12.demon.co.uk/ '----''(_/--' `-'\_) Morticia
erith romycin
>NightMist wrote:
>>From showing some friends from Manchester UK around, I rather gather
>>that a lot of the goodies you can buy at the hardware store here are
>>not available over there. We popped into True Value to look for some
>>tools the male part of the couple thought he could find here at a
>>better price. They were just stunned by the chemicals shelf over in
>>the paint department, and oddly enough the loads for nail guns just
>>hanging on a J hook in front of god and everybody.
>Evidence that the UK will never really get rid of its firearm problem.
Well, no. It has pretty much reduced it though. Of course we're going to
have guns about, it's virtually impossible to prevent them form falling into
the wrong hands, but if you can reduce the number of guns about, that's
doing something.
>We don't have to lock up the nailgun supplied because .38 ammunition
>is so much less crap.
Well, it would appear 1000 .27 caliber powder actuated nailgun nails costs
about $60.00, and 1000 .38 caliber bullets would cost about $300 for
remanufactured rounds (after some searching). So it's more expensive, that's
for certain, but, er.
See when I want to put a nail in a thing? I get a hammer. See when I'm
trying to nail metal to stone? I stop, and use something other than a nail.
I mean, it might be a bit more work, but there's no shortage of fixatives
out there. It might take longer, but I'd be willing to drill a hole, run a
bolt or a masonry expansion rawl or similar. I mean, really?
It also strikes me that most safety interlocks on powder actuated nail guns
would be trivial to defeat. Any lock can be picked, it's in their nature.
--
erith - .sig
erith romycin
>Nightmist:
>>They were just stunned by the chemicals shelf over in
>>the paint department, and oddly enough the loads for nail guns just
>>hanging on a J hook in front of god and everybody.
>Its true.
>If you want acetone you need to go to a pharmasist for a small ammount
>or a trade decorator supply for a bulk ammount.
The same is true of fertiliser. It's almost as if there was a protracted
campaign of domestic terrorism using readily available supplies that saw
their sale and use controlled.
>You can buy meths and white spirit at the hardware sheds, but denatured
>alcohol is another pharmacy special or from a bulk chemical supplier.
Though our 18 year olds can go to the off license and buy their own beer
legally.
>We can buy caustic soda, but again that tends to be at the hardware/diy
>sheds.
We can also buy paracetemol without the chemical in it that stops you from
committing suicide with it. Though only 30 odd at a time.
>Nailguns can be bought, but they tend to be battery operated or
>compressor operated at the sheds, but if you buy online from a trade
>suppliers you can get piezo ignition propane powered ones legally. Those
>things can punch a nail through a 2" concrete block panel. They do have
>pressure switches and light sensors on though. so you can't just hold
>back the pressure switch.
Well, you could, but nothing would happen. Also, electrical tape.
--
erith - .sig
Peter H. Coffin
Add in that you're a professional contractor now, and you can do the
same job in $300 of labor with the nailgun, or $3000 using drill and
anchored bolts.
> It also strikes me that most safety interlocks on powder actuated nail guns
> would be trivial to defeat. Any lock can be picked, it's in their nature.
Only if you want it to open again.
--
Mares eat oats, and does eat oats, and little lambs eat ivy,
A kid will eat ivy too, wouldn't you?
Elder
e_sciss...@btconnect.com says...
> The comedy used-car messes that will result from silly old idiots in
> LPG-powered "Jags" recharging their R12 systems will be worth it, though...
>
because it will have leaked out before they finished filling. The oil
might react though I suppose.
I did manage to refill my old Celica GT4 with Isceon-49 as it was
totally empty and that worked great for the 6months before I sold it.
That was what convinced me that aircon was a luxury but a necessity.
Elder
erithr...@ananzi.co.za says...
> >Nailguns can be bought, but they tend to be battery operated or
> >compressor operated at the sheds, but if you buy online from a trade
> >suppliers you can get piezo ignition propane powered ones legally. Those
> >things can punch a nail through a 2" concrete block panel. They do have
> >pressure switches and light sensors on though. so you can't just hold
> >back the pressure switch.
>
> Well, you could, but nothing would happen. Also, electrical tape.
>
once he realised it would go through a wall, he tried the pulling back
trick and that didn't work either. After that we went back to work.
Joseph Brenner
"erith romycin" <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> writes:
> Peter H Coffin wrote:
>>Evidence that the UK will never really get rid of its firearm problem.
>
> Well, no. It has pretty much reduced it though. Of course we're going to
> have guns about, it's virtually impossible to prevent them form falling into
> the wrong hands, but if you can reduce the number of guns about, that's
> doing something.
As I understand it, there isn't any evidence at all that tightening up
gun restrictions does anything to reduce crime or whatever.
On the other hand, tightening up gun restrictions also doesn't do
anything to make crime more likely... so both the pro- and anti- gun
sides are out to lunch, at least in this respect.
Peter H. Coffin
>
> "erith romycin" <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> writes:
>> Peter H Coffin wrote:
>
>>>Evidence that the UK will never really get rid of its firearm problem.
>>
>> Well, no. It has pretty much reduced it though. Of course we're going to
>> have guns about, it's virtually impossible to prevent them form falling into
>> the wrong hands, but if you can reduce the number of guns about, that's
>> doing something.
>
> As I understand it, there isn't any evidence at all that tightening up
> gun restrictions does anything to reduce crime or whatever.
It reduces a certain kind of gun crime, the impulsive "gol durn it, his
dog's crapped on my lawn for the last time!" kind of assault.
It follows along with an increase in certain other kinds of crime, like
the broken bottle "gol durn it, his dog's crapped on my lawn for the last
time!" kind of assault.
> On the other hand, tightening up gun restrictions also doesn't do
> anything to make crime more likely... so both the pro- and anti- gun
> sides are out to lunch, at least in this respect.
Sure it does. It makes a whole lot of people who are firearms-owners into
felons.
--
The plural of datum is not "facts".
A collection of facts is not "knowledge".
whisky-dave
"Joseph Brenner" <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote in message
news:87aaz86...@kzsu.stanford.edu...
>
> "erith romycin" <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> writes:
>> Peter H Coffin wrote:
>
>>>Evidence that the UK will never really get rid of its firearm problem.
>>
>> Well, no. It has pretty much reduced it though. Of course we're going to
>> have guns about, it's virtually impossible to prevent them form falling
>> into
>> the wrong hands, but if you can reduce the number of guns about, that's
>> doing something.
>
> As I understand it, there isn't any evidence at all that tightening up
> gun restrictions does anything to reduce crime or whatever.
Well no of course not, if you use the open term crime.
Why not look in to whether or not gun retrictions reduce gun crime.
I really don't see why a restriction of guns would stop indecent exposure
or shop lifting or joy riding, before guns were invented we had crime.
Getting ride of guns doesn't stop crime, but it will reduce the number of
crimes
commited with the aid of a gun.
There's only two ways of getting ride of crime, have no laws
or eliminate the human race.
Endymion
> Why not look in to whether or not gun retrictions reduce gun crime.
> I really don't see why a restriction of guns would stop indecent exposure
> or shop lifting or joy riding, before guns were invented we had crime.
> Getting ride of guns doesn't stop crime, but it will reduce the number of
> crimes commited with the aid of a gun.
Right, and if you ban red cars, you'll see a massive reduction in the
number of red cars being driven recklessly or under the influence.
Can you spot the flaw in this logic?
(Maybe not, given that you live in a nation in which banning pointy
kitchen knives is viewed as an effective anti-violence measure...)
- Endymion
Peter H. Coffin
They might actually get somewhere if they ban beer cans and glass
bottles. Until that happens, there's going to be no lack of ways to fuck
someone up from the comfortable confines of an unlit doorway.
--
For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience?
-- Paul (I Corinthians 10:29)
whisky-dave
"Endymion" <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:67241186-5ae1-4d3c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 8:23 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
> Why not look in to whether or not gun retrictions reduce gun crime.
> I really don't see why a restriction of guns would stop indecent exposure
> or shop lifting or joy riding, before guns were invented we had crime.
> Getting ride of guns doesn't stop crime, but it will reduce the number of
> crimes commited with the aid of a gun.
}Right, and if you ban red cars, you'll see a massive reduction in the
}number of red cars being driven recklessly or under the influence.
}Can you spot the flaw in this logic?
No, because if red cars are causing the accidents then banning them will
reduce the number of accident, in fact I've heard that red cars are less
likely
to be involved in accidents anyway.
}(Maybe not, given that you live in a nation in which banning pointy
}kitchen knives is viewed as an effective anti-violence measure...)
No we don;t but it can reduce knife crime in those targeted, in fact
stabbing in those areas did reduce.
whisky-dave
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnheuirl....@abyss.ninehells.com...
Yep that's true better to give out sniper rifles .
Less need for hand to hand combat too.
Endymion
> "Endymion" <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
> }Right, and if you ban red cars, you'll see a massive reduction in the
> }number of red cars being driven recklessly or under the influence.
> }Can you spot the flaw in this logic?
>
> No, because if red cars are causing the accidents
Exactly.
If you take dangerous drives out of red cars and put them in blue
cars, do you expect the overall number of accidents will decrease?
- E
Joseph Brenner
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> writes:
> Endymion wrote:
>> "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>> Why not look in to whether or not gun retrictions reduce gun crime.
>>> I really don't see why a restriction of guns would stop indecent exposure
>>> or shop lifting or joy riding, before guns were invented we had crime.
>>> Getting ride of guns doesn't stop crime, but it will reduce the number of
>>> crimes commited with the aid of a gun.
>>
>> Right, and if you ban red cars, you'll see a massive reduction in the
>> number of red cars being driven recklessly or under the influence.
>>
>> Can you spot the flaw in this logic?
>>
>> (Maybe not, given that you live in a nation in which banning pointy
>> kitchen knives is viewed as an effective anti-violence measure...)
>
> They might actually get somewhere if they ban beer cans and glass
> bottles.
Funny you should mention that -- every single alcohol permit that I pull
has a "police rider" attached to it, forbidding us from serving in
bottles or cans. In effect, we're legally required to serve it in
plastic cups, though there's never been a "law" passed to that effect.
Joseph Brenner
I wouldn't, myself, though it wouldn't suprise the hell out of me to
learn that there's a weird psychological effect that kicks in if people
are driving cars in "exciting" colors...
Joseph Brenner
"whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> writes:
> "Joseph Brenner" <do...@kzsu.stanford.edu> wrote:
>> "erith romycin" <erithr...@ananzi.co.za> writes:
>>> Peter H Coffin wrote:
>>
>>>>Evidence that the UK will never really get rid of its firearm problem.
>>> Well, no. It has pretty much reduced it though. Of course we're
>>> going to have guns about, it's virtually impossible to prevent them
>>> form falling into the wrong hands, but if you can reduce the number
>>> of guns about, that's doing something.
>> As I understand it, there isn't any evidence at all that tightening up
>> gun restrictions does anything to reduce crime or whatever.
>
> Well no of course not, if you use the open term crime.
> Why not look in to whether or not gun retrictions reduce gun crime.
I'm going from memory of a chapter in "Nine Crazy Ideas in Science"
by Robert Ehrlich:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/01/1918208&tid=192&tid=133&tid=6&tid=14
I don't remember what type of "crime" he was looking at, but I would
guess it was some official definition of "violent crime".
NightMist
Gah.
OK, let us try an actual statistic. Recorded over numerous studies,
and undeniably true.
When sales of ice cream increase, murder rates increase.
Should we therefore ban ice cream?
Question for you, if in the areas where knives were banned crimes
commited with knives went down, what happened with the rates of
violent crimes in general? Were more people bludgeoned? Were more
people attacked with sharp objects that were not knives (broken glass,
scrap metal, pointy sticks, etc.)? Were more people beaten by hand?
If you don't know then I suggest that the knife statistic is
meaningless.
NightMist
--
Legolas is my house elf
whisky-dave
Exactly.
I would as they reckon that the eye is more sensitive to a sudden RED i.e
a car coming out of the blue ;-) give a person more time to react, the next
colour to have least accidetns was silver, in the UK..
http://www.wisegeek.com/is-there-a-link-between-car-color-and-accidents.htm
"The study involved accidents in New Zealand between 1998 and 1999.
According to their findings, drivers of brown cars had the highest risk of
sustaining serious injuries caused by auto accidents. Black and green cars
also had elevated risks.
Which are the safest cars? Drivers of silver-colored cars, according to the
report, have a 50% less chance of being involved in an injury-causing
accident than do drivers of white cars! While the results are surprising,
more studies need to be performed before we all rush out and repaint or
replace our vehicles.
The scientists did not explain why there was such a disparity in accident
rates. Perhaps lighter colored cars are more visible, or perhaps the people
who choose such cars are a self-selecting group of safe drivers. "
-------------------------------------
- E
whisky-dave
if yuo find peolpe that use ice cream as a murder weapon then it might be a
good idea
to restrict ice cream to those that use it as a weapon.
The link between ice cream and murder is hot weather, it's a good idea to
understand
that link in that if you are employed in law and order or need to allocate
more nurses and
doctors to treating people during those times.
>
> Question for you, if in the areas where knives were banned
Point ONE.
Knives were NOT banned.
The carrying or knives such as kitchen and larger knives and those knives
that aren't considered to be necessarily carried are banned.
I have such knives at home and no one has ever banned me from carrying
them or using them, but if I were to walk with them down the road without a
good reason
then I could be charge with carrying an offensive weapon.
>crimes
> commited with knives went down, what happened with the rates of
> violent crimes in general? Were more people bludgeoned? Were more
> people attacked with sharp objects that were not knives (broken glass,
> scrap metal, pointy sticks, etc.)? Were more people beaten by hand?
> If you don't know then I suggest that the knife statistic is
> meaningless.
It's not meaningless to those that are threatrened or assulted by the school
children
that carry these knives. You are assuming if a knive is taken from a person
that they then
go and grab a bottle and carry that in their pocket. Why carry a knife
anyway ?
most reports are that it's for self defence, but why a knife why not a
pointy stick ?
The problem being that such a weapon gives you more confidence and makes you
more likely to lash out and that is what's happening, especially amongst
school kids
A lot of pubs now serve beer in plastic glasses this is because of violence
in pubs
now you're trying to suggest that banning real glass in pubs wouldn't have
any effect
because people wanting to cause trouble will carry pointy sticks instead, or
maybe rolled up
copies music mag and the instances of people assaulted by music mags goes
up,
and you think that's a more serious problem being hit by a rolled up music
mag than being
hit in the face by a pint glass ?
Peter H. Coffin
> A lot of pubs now serve beer in plastic glasses this is because of
> violence in pubs now you're trying to suggest that banning real glass
> in pubs wouldn't have any effect because people wanting to cause
> trouble will carry pointy sticks instead, or maybe rolled up copies
> music mag and the instances of people assaulted by music mags goes up,
> and you think that's a more serious problem being hit by a rolled up
> music mag than being hit in the face by a pint glass ?
Or, more relevantly, chunks of marble building material. Next step! Ban
carrying rocks!
--
73. I will not agree to let the heroes go free if they win a rigged contest,
even though my advisors assure me it is impossible for them to win.
whisky-dave
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:38:21 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> A lot of pubs now serve beer in plastic glasses this is because of
>> violence in pubs now you're trying to suggest that banning real glass
>> in pubs wouldn't have any effect because people wanting to cause
>> trouble will carry pointy sticks instead, or maybe rolled up copies
>> music mag and the instances of people assaulted by music mags goes up,
>> and you think that's a more serious problem being hit by a rolled up
>> music mag than being hit in the face by a pint glass ?
>
> Or, more relevantly, chunks of marble building material. Next step! Ban
> carrying rocks!
If they are used as weapons then we should ban them
from being carried by those using them as weapons.
Those that kill by using a car are banned from driving, even those that
drink & drive can be banned from driving, but do driving bans stop
people being killed by dangerous drivers ?
Some people get locked up does that really stop people driving dangerously
just
by locking them up.
I even believe that executing a person stops them from committing certain
crimes
but other say it doesn't work, but I've yet to hear of anyone committing or
recommitting
the crime they did after they were buried.
whisky-dave
>
> "whisky-dave" <whisk...@final.front.ear> writes:
>> Well no of course not, if you use the open term crime.
>> Why not look in to whether or not gun retrictions reduce gun crime.
>
> I'm going from memory of a chapter in "Nine Crazy Ideas in Science"
> by Robert Ehrlich:
>
>
> http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/01/1918208&tid=192&tid=133&tid=6&tid=14
>
> I don't remember what type of "crime" he was looking at, but I would
> guess it was some official definition of "violent crime".
I wonder if poisoning someone is classed as a violent crime.
Joseph Brenner
>>> Well no of course not, if you use the open term crime.
>>> Why not look in to whether or not gun retrictions reduce gun crime.
>>
>> I'm going from memory of a chapter in "Nine Crazy Ideas in Science"
>> by Robert Ehrlich:
>>
>> http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/01/1918208&tid=192&tid=133&tid=6&tid=14
>>
>> I don't remember what type of "crime" he was looking at, but I would
>> guess it was some official definition of "violent crime".
>
> I wonder if poisoning someone is classed as a violent crime.
A corner case lost in the noise, I would imagine. Poisoning has
gone out of style.
(As far as we know.)
voodoo
The correct question to ask is "Do gun restrictions reduce the number
of crime related deaths?" In countries with stricter gun laws do a
lower percentage of crime victims die as a result of the crime?
NightMist
>
>"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4af16e32...@news.windstream.net...
>> When sales of ice cream increase, murder rates increase.
>> Should we therefore ban ice cream?
>
>if yuo find peolpe that use ice cream as a murder weapon then it might be a
>good idea
>to restrict ice cream to those that use it as a weapon.
>The link between ice cream and murder is hot weather, it's a good idea to
>understand
>that link in that if you are employed in law and order or need to allocate
>more nurses and
>doctors to treating people during those times.
I know what the link is.
The point is that you have to know the link.
Never assume the obvious.
I'll bet it is meaningless to somebody who was bludgeoned with a
criket bat in that area.
The point I was attempting to get across is that people who are
willing and able to commit violence will. They will use whatever is
to hand to do it. People who imagine that banning some particular
item that is used to do violence is going to help find that there is a
never ending list of things that people will use to harm other people.
If you just keep banning stuff you will eventually get to the point
that you are banning sticks and stones.
I can easily envision things coming to a point where bonded people
with security ratings are hired to patrol the streets picking up
sticks, stones, and stray sporks in order to keep them out of the
hands of potential criminals.
Banning things is so much easier than attempting to address actual
problems. Or in most cases admitting that problems even exist.
>
>A lot of pubs now serve beer in plastic glasses this is because of violence
>in pubs
>now you're trying to suggest that banning real glass in pubs wouldn't have
>any effect
>because people wanting to cause trouble will carry pointy sticks instead, or
>maybe rolled up
>copies music mag and the instances of people assaulted by music mags goes
>up,
>and you think that's a more serious problem being hit by a rolled up music
>mag than being
>hit in the face by a pint glass ?
Bar fights aren't usually people that walk in wanting to cause
trouble, though that does happen. Bar fights are usually people who
shouldn't be drinking getting drunk.
Peter H. Coffin
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhf38e6....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:38:21 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>> A lot of pubs now serve beer in plastic glasses this is because of
>>> violence in pubs now you're trying to suggest that banning real
>>> glass in pubs wouldn't have any effect because people wanting to
>>> cause trouble will carry pointy sticks instead, or maybe rolled up
>>> copies music mag and the instances of people assaulted by music mags
>>> goes up, and you think that's a more serious problem being hit by a
>>> rolled up music mag than being hit in the face by a pint glass ?
>>
>> Or, more relevantly, chunks of marble building material. Next step!
>> Ban carrying rocks!
>
> If they are used as weapons then we should ban them from being carried
> by those using them as weapons.
The problem is that these things are and are not weapons instantly.
It's just a rock when it's a bit bashed off a kerb, it's nebulous when
someone picks it up, and it's a weapon when it hits someone else's
skull. Firearms, at least, don't tend to change that state. You CANNOT
ban something sensibly "when used as a weapon" because the number of
things that can be used as weapons is so broad, and you end up with the
only rational thing to do is ban the using of something AS a weapon.
It's not thing THING, but the ACT, and the ACTS are already illegal.
> Those that kill by using a car are banned from driving, even those
> that drink & drive can be banned from driving, but do driving bans
> stop people being killed by dangerous drivers ? Some people get locked
> up does that really stop people driving dangerously just by locking
> them up.
Locking them up, perhaps. Banning them from driving DOESN'T seem to stop
them. It's not like taking away someone's driving priviilge actually
stops them from driving. And, since they're doing something they can be
arrested for anyway, what's the bother with stopping for a few drinks
along the way?
> I even believe that executing a person stops them from committing
> certain crimes but other say it doesn't work, but I've yet to hear of
> anyone committing or recommitting the crime they did after they were
> buried.
I have no idea where you're going with this, nor how it's remotely
relevant.
--
19. I will not have a daughter. She would be as beautiful as she was evil, but
one look at the hero's rugged countenance and she'd betray her own father.
Peter H. Coffin
Nah, you're just not old enough yet. It's the homicide weapon of choice
for young adults to kill people over 50.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/teens.htm
--
_ o
|/)
Peter H. Coffin
Maybe. It certainly doesn't reduce the rate of assaults.
http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/society/assaults.aspx
The US is on par with Canada and Australia, and all three have assault
rates about 2/3 of what the UK has, including murders. Guns don't make
violence; culture does.
--
_ o
|/)
Joseph Brenner
I'm at that awkward age, neither a poisoner or a victim.
(Or is it "nor a victim"?)
I was actually wondering about the rumors you hear of CIA (et. al.)
poisons that perfectly mimic the symptoms of heart attack.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478
"Coronary heart disease caused 445,687 deaths in 2005 and is
the single leading cause of death in America today."
Joseph Brenner
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> writes:
> You CANNOT ban something sensibly "when used as a weapon" because the
> number of things that can be used as weapons is so broad, and you end
> up with the only rational thing to do is ban the using of something AS
> a weapon.
Heh. "sensibly"... "rational"... we're talking about the legal system here.
The thing to do is to ban everything, so that the police can bust anyone
they want.
(I've been having some fun trying to get straight answers out of the ABC
about what the rules actually are for doing events with alcohol... they
don't apparently feel a burning need to eliminate confusion or ambiguity
in this area.)
Peter H. Coffin
Potassium poisoning's pretty good for that. It's not *perfect*, or
undetectable if someone's got a reason for testing for it, but it
doesn't show up on typical poisoning screenings, and it looks a *lot*
like a heart attack. So, if your target is someone who's moderately
likely to get a heart attack and it wouldn't be surprising to find an
injection site on them, it's probably a good choice.
.... sigh... too much time with Wikipedia and Bruckheimer-produced TV
shows...
--
62. I will design fortress hallways with no alcoves or protruding structural
supports which intruders could use for cover in a firefight.
whisky-dave
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:07:46 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhf38e6....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>
>>> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:38:21 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> A lot of pubs now serve beer in plastic glasses this is because of
>>>> violence in pubs now you're trying to suggest that banning real
>>>> glass in pubs wouldn't have any effect because people wanting to
>>>> cause trouble will carry pointy sticks instead, or maybe rolled up
>>>> copies music mag and the instances of people assaulted by music mags
>>>> goes up, and you think that's a more serious problem being hit by a
>>>> rolled up music mag than being hit in the face by a pint glass ?
>>>
>>> Or, more relevantly, chunks of marble building material. Next step!
>>> Ban carrying rocks!
>>
>> If they are used as weapons then we should ban them from being carried
>> by those using them as weapons.
>
> The problem is that these things are and are not weapons instantly.
inside the bank unless they are security personnel so why the ban ?
> It's just a rock when it's a bit bashed off a kerb, it's nebulous when
> someone picks it up, and it's a weapon when it hits someone else's
> skull.
Or when thrown through a window breaking it and showering a babies cot with
class that she is sleeping, which what happened at the flat below my
friends.
So yuo don;t think it strange that a group of school kids happen to have
rocks in their hands
while walking about.
> in Firearms, at least, don't tend to change that state. You CANNOT
> ban something sensibly "when used as a weapon" because the number of
> things that can be used as weapons is so broad, and you end up with the
> only rational thing to do is ban the using of something AS a weapon.
> It's not thing THING, but the ACT, and the ACTS are already illegal.
At that point it is usually too late and the ACT has been done someone gets
killed
or injured, so it's a good idea to try to stop it happening in the first
place.
Some people like me have the ability to predict certain outcomes or rather
consider them
to be more likely. I saw one youth carrying a matchet type object alone trhe
road once,
now I don't live in a rain forest or jungle so I'm not sure what he was
doing.
>> Those that kill by using a car are banned from driving, even those
>> that drink & drive can be banned from driving, but do driving bans
>> stop people being killed by dangerous drivers ? Some people get locked
>> up does that really stop people driving dangerously just by locking
>> them up.
>
> Locking them up, perhaps. Banning them from driving DOESN'T seem to stop
> them.
So why bother ?
> It's not like taking away someone's driving priviilge actually
> stops them from driving. And, since they're doing something they can be
> arrested for anyway, what's the bother with stopping for a few drinks
> along the way?
Nothing unless there's a chance of being caught, but they'd be no chance of
that
with your ideals that a car isn't a weapon which means we can't attempt to
stop
drunk people from driving.
>> I even believe that executing a person stops them from committing
>> certain crimes but other say it doesn't work, but I've yet to hear of
>> anyone committing or recommitting the crime they did after they were
>> buried.
>
> I have no idea where you're going with this, nor how it's remotely
> relevant.
it's about attempting to stop something from happening, there are many ways
of attempting to do this
but the success rate varies on the method chosen. Sometimes a smack on the
wrist is
sufficient , sometimes a fine and sometimes more drastic measures are
required.
whisky-dave
>
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> writes:
>
>> You CANNOT ban something sensibly "when used as a weapon" because the
>> number of things that can be used as weapons is so broad, and you end
>> up with the only rational thing to do is ban the using of something AS
>> a weapon.
>
> Heh. "sensibly"... "rational"... we're talking about the legal system
> here.
>
> The thing to do is to ban everything, so that the police can bust anyone
> they want.
except teh things the police do of course ir those in charge ;-)
>
> (I've been having some fun trying to get straight answers out of the ABC
> about what the rules actually are for doing events with alcohol... they
> don't apparently feel a burning need to eliminate confusion or ambiguity
> in this area.)
What's the ABC I know what a Q is in star trek :-)
whisky-dave
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 14:38:21 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>>
>>"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4af16e32...@news.windstream.net...
>
>
>>> When sales of ice cream increase, murder rates increase.
>>> Should we therefore ban ice cream?
>>
>>if yuo find peolpe that use ice cream as a murder weapon then it might be
>>a
>>good idea
>>to restrict ice cream to those that use it as a weapon.
>>The link between ice cream and murder is hot weather, it's a good idea to
>>understand
>>that link in that if you are employed in law and order or need to allocate
>>more nurses and
>>doctors to treating people during those times.
>
> I know what the link is.
> The point is that you have to know the link.
> Never assume the obvious.
One should consider the obvious as a good starting point.
It might be but I've not heard of people being bludgeoned with a
criket, but there were 20 odd stabbing a year.
Baseball bats are better anyway, I'm betting there's a few bats being
carried
in whitby too last weekend, but I've not heard of anyone being bludgeoned
with a
rubber vampire bat so I wouldn';t ban them from being carried untill people
started
using the to bludgeoned others with.
> The point I was attempting to get across is that people who are
> willing and able to commit violence will. They will use whatever is
> to hand to do it.
And if it's not to hand ?
JFK wasn't killed by a cricket bat[1] niether was john lennon.
Do you think the killer(s) who every there are would have succseeded if they
were armed with a cricket bat rather than a gun of some description ?
>People who imagine that banning some particular
> item that is used to do violence is going to help find that there is a
> never ending list of things that people will use to harm other people.
Yes you can call them names too.
> If you just keep banning stuff you will eventually get to the point
> that you are banning sticks and stones.
So you wouldn;t want the banning of throwing stones at women that
have been found guilty or adultery ?
> I can easily envision things coming to a point where bonded people
> with security ratings are hired to patrol the streets picking up
> sticks, stones, and stray sporks in order to keep them out of the
> hands of potential criminals.
I can't imagine that due to costs.
>
> Banning things is so much easier than attempting to address actual
> problems. Or in most cases admitting that problems even exist.
So who dies while such issues are addressed ?
How do you adress teh issue of street crime.
>>A lot of pubs now serve beer in plastic glasses this is because of
>>violence
>>in pubs
>>now you're trying to suggest that banning real glass in pubs wouldn't have
>>any effect
>>because people wanting to cause trouble will carry pointy sticks instead,
>>or
>>maybe rolled up
>>copies music mag and the instances of people assaulted by music mags goes
>>up,
>>and you think that's a more serious problem being hit by a rolled up
>>music
>>mag than being
>>hit in the face by a pint glass ?
>
> Bar fights aren't usually people that walk in wanting to cause
> trouble, though that does happen. Bar fights are usually people who
> shouldn't be drinking getting drunk.
So what is the actual issue here then and how will you solve this problem.
Are you going ban people from drinking ?
[1] Well I've yet to hear of a conspiracy theory involving one.
whisky-dave
Looking at such stats doesn't always help as it only includes reported
assaults,
then there's the level of assault to take in to account.
At what point and what type and magnitude of assault is sufficient enough to
be recorded ?
But the USA does seem to have more of a culture of gun crime, they do
seem to have a higher population of prisoners too.
Peter H. Coffin
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhf3nhm....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
>> in Firearms, at least, don't tend to change that state. You CANNOT
>> ban something sensibly "when used as a weapon" because the number
>> of things that can be used as weapons is so broad, and you end up
>> with the only rational thing to do is ban the using of something AS a
>> weapon. It's not thing THING, but the ACT, and the ACTS are already
>> illegal.
>
> At that point it is usually too late and the ACT has been done
> someone gets killed or injured, so it's a good idea to try to stop it
> happening in the first place. Some people like me have the ability to
> predict certain outcomes or rather consider them to be more likely. I
> saw one youth carrying a matchet type object alone trhe road once, now
> I don't live in a rain forest or jungle so I'm not sure what he was
> doing.
How the hell are you going to stop it happening? People bashing someone
with a rock or a bottle obviously aren't concerned about laws, so why
would the seconds before, when someone had picked up the bottle with the
intent to bash, hadn't yet, allow you the time to do something to stop
it? Even with London blanketed with CCTV cameras, it still doesn't
PREVENT the bashing, only makes later arrest and prosecution slightly
more likely. Which is, perhaps, a fine thing, but it's 100% irrelevant
to PREVENTING a crime.
>>> Those that kill by using a car are banned from driving, even those
>>> that drink & drive can be banned from driving, but do driving bans
>>> stop people being killed by dangerous drivers ? Some people get
>>> locked up does that really stop people driving dangerously just by
>>> locking them up.
>>
>> Locking them up, perhaps. Banning them from driving DOESN'T seem to
>> stop them.
>
> So why bother ?
Beats me. I've never been in favor of taking driving licenses away for
driving drunk. Stamping the thing "NO ALCOHOL" so that it cannot be ID
to buy booze or to gain entry where alcohol is served would be more
useful.
>> It's not like taking away someone's driving priviilge actually stops
>> them from driving. And, since they're doing something they can be
>> arrested for anyway, what's the bother with stopping for a few drinks
>> along the way?
>
> Nothing unless there's a chance of being caught, but they'd be no
> chance of that with your ideals that a car isn't a weapon which means
> we can't attempt to stop drunk people from driving.
Sheepdip. The driving prohibition after intoxication has nothing
whatsoever to with any legal "car becomes a weapon" thing. Where one
hears that is from bleating causemongers that have put even less thought
into their opinions than you do.
>>> I even believe that executing a person stops them from committing
>>> certain crimes but other say it doesn't work, but I've yet to hear
>>> of anyone committing or recommitting the crime they did after they
>>> were buried.
>>
>> I have no idea where you're going with this, nor how it's remotely
>> relevant.
>
> it's about attempting to stop something from happening, there are
> many ways of attempting to do this but the success rate varies on
> the method chosen. Sometimes a smack on the wrist is sufficient ,
> sometimes a fine and sometimes more drastic measures are required.
Again, the "attempting to stop something from happening" issue is that
it is so useless and impossible that the very idea should be laughed out
of every courtroom and legislature on the planet. Here's a bet for you:
the next time someone commits a crime against you, press charges against
whatever group, organization, or authority that was using laws like this
as a measure to prevent that crime from happening, for dereliction in
their duties because the crime was not prevented. See how far you get
with that. I'll double the bet that you'll even hear that it's not the
duty of police or government to PREVENT crime, only to enforce the law
of the land.
Only an insane society would punish someone for putting aside a rock
picked up in anger as they might punish someone for clobbering someone
with the rock instead.
--
23. I will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in
their use. That way--even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power
generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless--my
troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears.
Peter H. Coffin
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhf3o3l....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
>> Maybe. It certainly doesn't reduce the rate of assaults.
>>
>> http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/society/assaults.aspx
>>
>> The US is on par with Canada and Australia, and all three have
>> assault rates about 2/3 of what the UK has, including murders. Guns
>> don't make violence; culture does.
>
> Looking at such stats doesn't always help as it only includes reported
> assaults, then there's the level of assault to take in to account. At
> what point and what type and magnitude of assault is sufficient enough
> to be recorded ?
There is no level of assault that's too trivial to record in the US.
There are some levels that are unlikely to be severe enough to convince
a jury that a crime has been committed, but recorded it shall be.
Maybe in your country, the police put their arms around someone's
shoulders and say "you don't want to be making life difficult for me,
do you?" but here? That kind of thing is loved dearly by the press,
and often leads to changes in adminstration or local government. So,
statements get taken, paperwork gets filed, and small notices of the
event get published in the local newspaper saying something like "A
white male was assaulted by two others outside Pat's Tap Friday evening
at approximately 11:45 PM, following an arguement inside the tavern.
Witnesses are encouraged to contact Det. Winslow at xxx-xxxx."
> But the USA does seem to have more of a culture of gun crime, they do
> seem to have a higher population of prisoners too.
The population of prisons here is largely made up of people arrested for
possession of assorted drugs, with possible other crime related. (35%
or so are "possession" charges of some kind, without ancillary crime
worthy of jail time. Some fool gets pulled over for driving too fast
or loitering and oh wow look at that, he's got a baggy with a couple
of grams of cannibis in his pocket or a couple of empty beer cans in
the back seat, so he's going to jail instead of getting a ticket.) It's
unfortunate and expensive, but it's hard to convince the general public
that these things are not worth filling jails over, so it continues.
--
"It's 106 light-years to Chicago, we've got a full chamber of anti-matter,
a half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing visors."
"Engage."
Nyx
>
> What's the ABC I know what a Q is in star trek :-)
Here it's Alabama Beverage Control. I imagine it's something similar.
Like Alcoholic Beverage Committee.
Nyx
voodoo
> On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:19:40 -0800 (PST), voodoo wrote:
> > On Nov 2, 11:59 am, Endymion <disintegrat...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Nov 2, 8:23 am, "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
> >> > Why not look in to whether or not gun retrictions reduce gun crime.
> >> > I really don't see why a restriction of guns would stop indecent exposure
> >> > or shop lifting or joy riding, before guns were invented we had crime.
> >> > Getting ride of guns doesn't stop crime, but it will reduce the number of
> >> > crimes commited with the aid of a gun.
>
> >> Right, and if you ban red cars, you'll see a massive reduction in the
> >> number of red cars being driven recklessly or under the influence.
>
> >> Can you spot the flaw in this logic?
>
> >> (Maybe not, given that you live in a nation in which banning pointy
> >> kitchen knives is viewed as an effective anti-violence measure...)
>
> >> - Endymion
>
> > The correct question to ask is "Do gun restrictions reduce the number
> > of crime related deaths?" In countries with stricter gun laws do a
> > lower percentage of crime victims die as a result of the crime?
>
> Maybe. It certainly doesn't reduce the rate of assaults.
>
> http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/society/assaults.aspx
Thanks, but thats not at all what I asked.
> The US is on par with Canada and Australia, and all three have assault
> rates about 2/3 of what the UK has, including murders. Guns don't make
> violence; culture does.
No argument there.
I will submit that the more available guns are the more likely that
violence will result in death. If we believe that reducing violent
deaths is a good thing, then limitations on gun ownership are a tool
to achieve this
NightMist
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4af1d173...@news.windstream.net...
>> The point I was attempting to get across is that people who are
>> willing and able to commit violence will. They will use whatever is
>> to hand to do it.
>
>And if it's not to hand ?
>JFK wasn't killed by a cricket bat[1] niether was john lennon.
>
>Do you think the killer(s) who every there are would have succseeded if they
>were armed with a cricket bat rather than a gun of some description ?
In the case of Lennon it is entirely possible.
I don't think that banning specific weapons will make much of a dent
at all in coldly calculated murder. In those cases the person
commiting the crime is going to obtain whatever weapon is desired,
period.
Looking at actual statistics, one would tend to conclude that illegal
firearms are used more often in the comission of crimes than legal
ones. Thus a ban would have minimal impact on crime rates, at least
in the US.
Never underestimate the impact of what appear to be minor cultural
differences.
>
>
> >People who imagine that banning some particular
>> item that is used to do violence is going to help find that there is a
>> never ending list of things that people will use to harm other people.
>
>Yes you can call them names too.
>
>
>> If you just keep banning stuff you will eventually get to the point
>> that you are banning sticks and stones.
>So you wouldn;t want the banning of throwing stones at women that
>have been found guilty or adultery ?
>
>> I can easily envision things coming to a point where bonded people
>> with security ratings are hired to patrol the streets picking up
>> sticks, stones, and stray sporks in order to keep them out of the
>> hands of potential criminals.
>
>I can't imagine that due to costs.
Considering the amount governments spend on crap?
Please!
Politicians would just jump around and shout things like "For the
children!" and "In the name of public safety!" and then sit down and
figure out how to use the program for what they want, or how to
squeeze it hard enough that a few drops from the cash flow fall into
their own pocket.
>
>>
>> Banning things is so much easier than attempting to address actual
>> problems. Or in most cases admitting that problems even exist.
>
> So who dies while such issues are addressed ?
The same people who are are going to die while they are being ignored.
If there is a hole in a water bucket, changing the color of the water
will not fix the hole nor make it flow out more slowly.
>How do you adress teh issue of street crime.
Which kind?
It is a way complex thing with a lot of causes. You are not going to
eliminate it all in a minute if at all. There are always people.
>
>>
>> Bar fights aren't usually people that walk in wanting to cause
>> trouble, though that does happen. Bar fights are usually people who
>> shouldn't be drinking getting drunk.
>
>So what is the actual issue here then and how will you solve this problem.
>Are you going ban people from drinking ?
>
A lot of pubs do.
Locally it is called being 86ed. Somebody gets a load on and starts a
fight every time they come in, the establishment owners tend to get
annoyed and tell them to buy their drink elsewhere. Usually places
will toss someone temporarily and if they come back and do it again it
becomes a permanent ban. Sometimes once is enough. Happens in fancy
places, places that cater to the dollar draft crowd, and those in
between. Owners want to sell booze, not break up fights.
Joseph Brenner
Yes. I think the "C" stands for "Control" out here.
whisky-dave
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:35:27 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>>
>>"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4af1d173...@news.windstream.net...
>
>>> The point I was attempting to get across is that people who are
>>> willing and able to commit violence will. They will use whatever is
>>> to hand to do it.
>>
>>And if it's not to hand ?
>>JFK wasn't killed by a cricket bat[1] niether was john lennon.
>>
>>Do you think the killer(s) who every there are would have succseeded if
>>they
>>were armed with a cricket bat rather than a gun of some description ?
>
> In the case of Lennon it is entirely possible.
But unlikely .
> I don't think that banning specific weapons will make much of a dent
> at all in coldly calculated murder. In those cases the person
> commiting the crime is going to obtain whatever weapon is desired,
> period.
True, but restricting those weapons might help.
> Looking at actual statistics, one would tend to conclude that illegal
> firearms are used more often in the comission of crimes than legal
> ones. Thus a ban would have minimal impact on crime rates, at least
> in the US.
Aren't they already banned hence their illegality ?
So why use illegal guns ?
> Never underestimate the impact of what appear to be minor cultural
> differences.
I'd agree with that, I wonder how stats show this.
>>> I can easily envision things coming to a point where bonded people
>>> with security ratings are hired to patrol the streets picking up
>>> sticks, stones, and stray sporks in order to keep them out of the
>>> hands of potential criminals.
>>
>>I can't imagine that due to costs.
>
> Considering the amount governments spend on crap?
> Please!
> Politicians would just jump around and shout things like "For the
> children!" and "In the name of public safety!" and then sit down and
> figure out how to use the program for what they want, or how to
> squeeze it hard enough that a few drops from the cash flow fall into
> their own pocket.
it won't be a few drops it'll be the majority of it. ;-)
>>> Banning things is so much easier than attempting to address actual
>>> problems. Or in most cases admitting that problems even exist.
>>
>> So who dies while such issues are addressed ?
>
> The same people who are are going to die while they are being ignored.
> If there is a hole in a water bucket, changing the color of the water
> will not fix the hole nor make it flow out more slowly.
But it might be considered art and get a grant.
>
>>How do you adress teh issue of street crime.
>
> Which kind?
> It is a way complex thing with a lot of causes. You are not going to
> eliminate it all in a minute if at all. There are always people.
Yep, eliminate them :-)
>>> Bar fights aren't usually people that walk in wanting to cause
>>> trouble, though that does happen. Bar fights are usually people who
>>> shouldn't be drinking getting drunk.
>>
>>So what is the actual issue here then and how will you solve this problem.
>>Are you going ban people from drinking ?
>>
> A lot of pubs do.
> Locally it is called being 86ed. Somebody gets a load on and starts a
> fight every time they come in, the establishment owners tend to get
> annoyed and tell them to buy their drink elsewhere.
Our landlords have a responsibility to not serve people that are drunk.
But I'm not sure where the line is drawn.
>Usually places
> will toss someone temporarily and if they come back and do it again it
> becomes a permanent ban. Sometimes once is enough. Happens in fancy
> places, places that cater to the dollar draft crowd, and those in
> between. Owners want to sell booze, not break up fights.
Yep, but they don't want to loose their licence either.
My Birthday party gig bit was cancelled by islington council because live
music
was going to be played. The council seemd to think that instructing[1] the
pub
in not allowing live music would stop live music being played there.......
Guess what it did, and no live[2] music was played.
So bans are or can be effective
[1] aka loose your licence to sell alcohol
[2] is defined as a band with amplification but acustic without amps would
have been OK.
whisky-dave
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:11:42 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhf3nhm....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>
>>> in Firearms, at least, don't tend to change that state. You CANNOT
>>> ban something sensibly "when used as a weapon" because the number
>>> of things that can be used as weapons is so broad, and you end up
>>> with the only rational thing to do is ban the using of something AS a
>>> weapon. It's not thing THING, but the ACT, and the ACTS are already
>>> illegal.
>>
>> At that point it is usually too late and the ACT has been done
>> someone gets killed or injured, so it's a good idea to try to stop it
>> happening in the first place. Some people like me have the ability to
>> predict certain outcomes or rather consider them to be more likely. I
>> saw one youth carrying a matchet type object alone trhe road once, now
>> I don't live in a rain forest or jungle so I'm not sure what he was
>> doing.
>
> How the hell are you going to stop it happening?
Me as an individual not a lot.
In the UK if you see someone with a firearm, that's not police or armed
forces etc..
you can phone the police and with a bit of luck they might be able to remove
that
weapon before it's used.
>People bashing someone
> with a rock or a bottle obviously aren't concerned about laws,
No I wasn't either as a kid I thought throwing glods of dirt/soil
at a girl and watching her jump out of the way was fun,
until her older brother told me if I did it again he'd beat the living shit
out of me.
If this were to happen today then I'd report him for touching me or
threatening me
and I could continiue to throw things at his sister ;-)
> so why
> would the seconds before, when someone had picked up the bottle with the
> intent to bash, hadn't yet, allow you the time to do something to stop
> it?
I can't with everyday objects any more than I can stop bank raids by banning
helmets.
> Even with London blanketed with CCTV cameras, it still doesn't
> PREVENT the bashing, only makes later arrest and prosecution slightly
> more likely. Which is, perhaps, a fine thing, but it's 100% irrelevant
> to PREVENTING a crime.
We don't have the mass killing in the UK that happen in america,
this could be due to the difficulty of getting such weapons.
>>>> Those that kill by using a car are banned from driving, even those
>>>> that drink & drive can be banned from driving, but do driving bans
>>>> stop people being killed by dangerous drivers ? Some people get
>>>> locked up does that really stop people driving dangerously just by
>>>> locking them up.
>>>
>>> Locking them up, perhaps. Banning them from driving DOESN'T seem to
>>> stop them.
>>
>> So why bother ?
>
> Beats me. I've never been in favor of taking driving licenses away for
> driving drunk. Stamping the thing "NO ALCOHOL" so that it cannot be ID
> to buy booze or to gain entry where alcohol is served would be more
> useful.
Unless the shop keeper ignores IDs of course.
But of course imprisoning them should make it impossible to drive drunk
on a public road for the duration of their sentence. So that could save a
life or two.
>>> It's not like taking away someone's driving priviilge actually stops
>>> them from driving. And, since they're doing something they can be
>>> arrested for anyway, what's the bother with stopping for a few drinks
>>> along the way?
>>
>> Nothing unless there's a chance of being caught, but they'd be no
>> chance of that with your ideals that a car isn't a weapon which means
>> we can't attempt to stop drunk people from driving.
>
> Sheepdip.
Yep not a bad whisky that.
> The driving prohibition after intoxication has nothing
> whatsoever to with any legal "car becomes a weapon" thing.
But it is a more dangerous weapon in the hands of someone intoxicated,
so would a gun be, so I'd say it's a good idea that intoxicated people and
such things
aren't mixed.
>Where one
> hears that is from bleating causemongers that have put even less thought
> into their opinions than you do.
Well I'm sure I could prove my opinion(s) by scientific experiments.
Sometimes you also have to separate facts from emotions too.
>>>> I even believe that executing a person stops them from committing
>>>> certain crimes but other say it doesn't work, but I've yet to hear
>>>> of anyone committing or recommitting the crime they did after they
>>>> were buried.
>>>
>>> I have no idea where you're going with this, nor how it's remotely
>>> relevant.
>>
>> it's about attempting to stop something from happening, there are
>> many ways of attempting to do this but the success rate varies on
>> the method chosen. Sometimes a smack on the wrist is sufficient ,
>> sometimes a fine and sometimes more drastic measures are required.
>
> Again, the "attempting to stop something from happening" issue is that
> it is so useless and impossible that the very idea should be laughed out
> of every courtroom and legislature on the planet.
So why have courtroonms they obviously can;t do anything to stop crimes.
>Here's a bet for you:
> the next time someone commits a crime against you,
I did that when I was about 8 years old.
Someone keep throwing gum in my hair and after about a year and telling teh
teachers
I did what my mum suggetsed and hit hi, well I knocked him to the floor
and smaked his head down on to the concrete playgroud floor and two teachers
pulled me off him.
He never did it again, and that was my aim rather than teaching him rocket
science.
>press charges against
> whatever group, organization, or authority that was using laws like this
> as a measure to prevent that crime from happening,
It's difficult with rocks, but not so difficult with some knives and guns.
>for dereliction in
> their duties because the crime was not prevented. See how far you get
> with that.
Nio where I know.
> I'll double the bet that you'll even hear that it's not the
> duty of police or government to PREVENT crime, only to enforce the law
> of the land.
So how can prevention be better than cure .
Some believe that preventing certain countries from aquiring nuclear
technology will stop them becoming a threat to the 'civilized' world.
> Only an insane society would punish someone for putting aside a rock
> picked up in anger as they might punish someone for clobbering someone
> with the rock instead.
We we have punished people for putting petrol in bottles that have had rags
placed in the top of them. Even though there might be a 'legal' reason for
doing so,
such as an art project.
>
> --
> 23. I will keep a special cache of low-tech weapons and train my troops in
> their use. That way--even if the heroes manage to neutralize my power
> generator and/or render the standard-issue energy weapons useless--my
> troops will not be overrun by a handful of savages armed with spears.
What makes them think that low-tech weapons are a match for spears
'fouznds of em' wait till you see the whites of their eyes. ;-)
Peter H. Coffin
>
> "NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4af40f5...@news.windstream.net...
>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:35:27 -0000, "whisky-dave"
>> <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4af1d173...@news.windstream.net...
>>
>>>> The point I was attempting to get across is that people who are
>>>> willing and able to commit violence will. They will use whatever is
>>>> to hand to do it.
>>>
>>>And if it's not to hand ?
>>>JFK wasn't killed by a cricket bat[1] niether was john lennon.
>>>
>>>Do you think the killer(s) who every there are would have succseeded if
>>>they
>>>were armed with a cricket bat rather than a gun of some description ?
>>
>> In the case of Lennon it is entirely possible.
>
> But unlikely .
>
>
>> I don't think that banning specific weapons will make much of a dent
>> at all in coldly calculated murder. In those cases the person
>> commiting the crime is going to obtain whatever weapon is desired,
>> period.
>
> True, but restricting those weapons might help.
Which weapons? Guns, kitchen knives, beer bottles, rocks....?
>> Looking at actual statistics, one would tend to conclude that illegal
>> firearms are used more often in the comission of crimes than legal
>> ones. Thus a ban would have minimal impact on crime rates, at least
>> in the US.
>
> Aren't they already banned hence their illegality ?
> So why use illegal guns ?
They're illegal because they were stolen from their owners, or because
they're possessed by convicted felons, or because they've been modified
in some way, or they were sold in some way that subverted a
documentation process or they're in the wrong city. I'm not sure why or
what you're asking about "So why use illegal guns?". Often they're
illegal because a criminal possesses them. But banning firearms doesn't mean
that the criminal doesn't possess a gun anymore. He's already been
banned from owning them in the first place.
[..]
>>Usually places
>> will toss someone temporarily and if they come back and do it again it
>> becomes a permanent ban. Sometimes once is enough. Happens in fancy
>> places, places that cater to the dollar draft crowd, and those in
>> between. Owners want to sell booze, not break up fights.
>
> Yep, but they don't want to loose their licence either.
> My Birthday party gig bit was cancelled by islington council because live
> music
> was going to be played. The council seemd to think that instructing[1] the
> pub
> in not allowing live music would stop live music being played there.......
>
> Guess what it did, and no live[2] music was played.
> So bans are or can be effective
>
> [1] aka loose your licence to sell alcohol
> [2] is defined as a band with amplification but acustic without amps would
> have been OK.
Let's draw a comparison: Pretend that instead of being at the pub, your
party was being held at a friend's house, and you intended to have
music. Now, how much good would instructing pub operators to forbid live
music do in thwarting your birthday plans? Absolutely none, right?
'cause yours isn't in a pub, it's in a friend's house. You don't care
that music's forbidden in the pub.
--
89. After I capture the hero's superweapon, I will not immediately disband my
legions and relax my guard because I believe whoever holds the weapon is
unstoppable. After all, the hero held the weapon and I took it from him.
Peter H. Coffin
Your criminals must be a lot more stupid than ours then. Here, you don't
see someone carrying a gun. Approximately 5 million concealed carry
permits have been issued in the US, but you seldom see them. Except in
Wisconsin, where concealed carry's illegal, but open carry is allowed
most places. Lots of holsters up noort, and calling the police for every
weapon you see on someone's hip will get you quickly dinged for wasting
police time.
--
Windows gives you a nice view of clouds so you can't see any potentially
useful boot time messages.
-- Bill Hay in the Monastery
Endymion
directly, so, Jennie wrote:
> It does a lot to reduce accidents, which is the area which has
> always caused me greatest concern. A shocking number of kids manage to
> shoot themselves or each other whilst playing with their parents'
> firearms in countries where they're freely available.
Only if you have a very low and disproportionate standard for
"shocking." We're talking maybe 100 a year in the US, less than 2% of
all accidental deaths among children, and the rate has been falling
steadily for decades. Swimming pools and household chemicals and
pharmaceuticals kill far more, and cars, about 30 times as many, but
we don't ban them, do we?
So we're back to Dave's original fallacy: yes, banning guns does
reduce fatal *gun* accidents among children - but fatal gun accidents
among children are so uncommon that the effect on the overall rate of
fatal accidents among children is negligible.
- Endymion
Satori
> The population of prisons here is largely made up of people arrested for
> possession of assorted drugs, with possible other crime related. (35%
> or so are "possession" charges of some kind, without ancillary crime
> worthy of jail time. Some fool gets pulled over for driving too fast
> or loitering and oh wow look at that, he's got a baggy with a couple
> of grams of cannibis in his pocket or a couple of empty beer cans in
> the back seat, so he's going to jail instead of getting a ticket.) It's
> unfortunate and expensive, but it's hard to convince the general public
> that these things are not worth filling jails over, so it continues.
>
Nobody's really trying to convince the general public of that. I think
if some politicians would have the courage to talk about the costs of
the drug war, we could get on the road to legalization of marijuana. But
everyone's too afraid that they'll be labeled "soft on crime", or just
generally dirty fucking hippies. So we don't really have the
conversation at all.
Peter H. Coffin
There's no reason to, that's all. No profit in it, no gain worth the
risk, it's only a bunch of nogoodniks who probably did something bad
sometime anyway, and (as you say) having the conversation requires a lot
of courage, for that unprofitable result.
--
76. If the hero runs up to my roof, I will not run up after him and struggle
with him in an attempt to push him over the edge. I will also not engage
him at the edge of a cliff. (In the middle of a rope-bridge over a river
of molten lava is not even worth considering.) --Evil Overlord List
TenshiKurai9
Joseph Brenner
> driving drunk. Stamping the thing "NO ALCOHOL" so that it cannot be ID
> to buy booze or to gain entry where alcohol is served would be more
> useful.
Hm. That's some creative thinking. It would need a little bit more
work to get it to work... that by itself would just be an incentive to
get a different kind of ID that shows date of birth (e.g. a passport).
If you required people to show their driver's license in order to buy
alcohol, then that's a little hard on people who didn't want to have
one, because they have no interest in driving.
Peter H. Coffin
Getting a passport's a pain as well; they don't fit in a wallet. More
importantly, it adds a layer of convenient and easy responisiblity onto
the vendor. Coming along with the "NO ALCOHOL" stamp is a requirement
NOT to sell, give or otherwise transfer booze to the bearer, similar to
that of refusing to sell to minors, and while bearer can lie, minors can
lie as well, so accepting that lie comes with a certain intrinsic
reluctance, and the vendor can decide to refuse to sell based on that.
Compare this with the way things are currently set up, where the
forbidden act is the driving: the vendor has no control over that, and
less interest, yet the vendor has the most control over whether the bod
drives drunk or not short of the individual in question (who's already
evidenced that, sometimes at least, that control is absent).
--
Cunningham's Second Law:
It's always more complex than you expect, even when you take
Cunningham's Second Law into account.
Peter H. Coffin
> On 2009-11-07, Endymion <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> steadily for decades. Swimming pools and household chemicals and
>> pharmaceuticals kill far more, and cars, about 30 times as many, but
>> we don't ban them, do we?
>
That's the telling statement: the implication being that firearms have
no practical use. It's not useful for the occasional citizen to be at
least as dangerous as a criminal.
--
68. I will spare someone who saved my life sometime in the past. This is only
reasonable as it encourages others to do so. However, the offer is good
one time only. If they want me to spare them again, they'd better save my
life again. --Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord
Satori
Plus, anyplace that I'm a regular at doesn't card me, anyway.
But I think we look at the phenomena of drunk driving the wrong way.
People like to drink with their friends. US-style Suburban living makes
this very difficult without driving to a bar. The best way to reduce
drunk driving is to have walkable communities and good mass transit. If
I could walk or subway to my favorite bar, I'd find myself in the "I'm
ready to go home, but I need to wait to sober up first" situation less
often. If MADD really cared about drunk driving, they'd push for more
light rail.
Peter H. Coffin
> But I think we look at the phenomena of drunk driving the wrong way.
> People like to drink with their friends. US-style Suburban living makes
> this very difficult without driving to a bar. The best way to reduce
> drunk driving is to have walkable communities and good mass transit. If
> I could walk or subway to my favorite bar, I'd find myself in the "I'm
> ready to go home, but I need to wait to sober up first" situation less
> often. If MADD really cared about drunk driving, they'd push for more
> light rail.
And for transit to run at least an hour past local closing time... I'm
looking at you, Boston.
--
72. If all the heroes are standing together around a strange device and begin
to taunt me, I will pull out a conventional weapon instead of using my
unstoppable superweapon on them.
TenshiKurai9
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 08:12:46 -0800, Satori wrote:
>> But I think we look at the phenomena of drunk driving the wrong way.
>> People like to drink with their friends. US-style Suburban living makes
>> this very difficult without driving to a bar. The best way to reduce
>> drunk driving is to have walkable communities and good mass transit. If
>> I could walk or subway to my favorite bar, I'd find myself in the "I'm
>> ready to go home, but I need to wait to sober up first" situation less
>> often. If MADD really cared about drunk driving, they'd push for more
>> light rail.
>
> And for transit to run at least an hour past local closing time... I'm
> looking at you, Boston.
For non-locals and those who haven't done research at some
point-in-time, like Peter here, most of our transit have last subway and
bus runs happen after midnight and before 1 AM. Closing time in Boston
is 2 AM. This is also why non-driving, suburban-living Tenshi doesn't
have a club life and only has attended the beginning of a limited number
events.
What's worse is the regional transit systems of other parts of the state
where you can at least come-back from a job that gets-off in the
late afternoon/early evening, but no later.
Place where I don't want to live because it's more difficult to get back
from Boston without a car, Hull, MA. There's a commuter boat and a bus
line contracted-out to a private service from the T. With the bus, you
first have to get to Hingham Center and then the latest bus leaves there
at 7:35 on a weekday. On a Saturday (no Sunday service), it's 6:45. On
a weekday with one commuter boat, you can leave Long Wharf, Boston at
8:55 PM and on another commuter boat, you can leave Logan Ferry Terminal
at 9:10 PM. Saturday you have to resort to the bus.
-TenshiKurai9, but at least it's not Maeve telling about the one bus
route in North Platte, NE.
TenshiKurai9
Now I want to make a comedy film where the local jail is being filled
with harmless stoners and during each one of the arrests, the cops are
being painfully oblivious to the escalating severity of the crimes being
committed by the non-stoners--even if it's right behind their backs.
-TenshiKurai9, seems to want to make a stoner movie already despite
never trying it.
Elder
author.]
In article <slrnhf8r4h....@abyss.ninehells.com>,
hel...@ninehells.com says...
> Your criminals must be a lot more stupid than ours then. Here, you don't
> see someone carrying a gun. Approximately 5 million concealed carry
> permits have been issued in the US, but you seldom see them. Except in
> Wisconsin, where concealed carry's illegal, but open carry is allowed
> most places. Lots of holsters up noort, and calling the police for every
> weapon you see on someone's hip will get you quickly dinged for wasting
> police time.
>
You can't even carry an uncased shotgun/rifle in public even if you lave
a license for it in the UK. At the very least it must be in a locked
softcase but even that might get you stopped and searched and warned.
Handguns of any kind (except air weapons) are banned out right. We don't
even have an olympic handgun target team anymore because of the handgun
ban.
--
Carl Robson
Get cashback on your purchases
Topcashback http://www.TopCashBack.co.uk/skraggy_uk/ref/index.htm
Greasypalm http://www.greasypalm.co.uk/r/?l=1006553
Joseph Brenner
Jennie Kermode <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> writes:
> Satori <dwis...@cox.net> wrote:
>> People like to drink with their friends. US-style Suburban living makes
>> this very difficult without driving to a bar. The best way to reduce
>> drunk driving is to have walkable communities and good mass transit.
>
> I completely agree with this. It's something that seems very
> odd about US culture from a UK perspective. Here, pretty much no matter
> where one lives (with the exception of a few shite new towns),
The trouble with the US is that it's almost all shite new towns.
Post-war, it not only became the fashion to build them, it became
legally required. The only real places are the ones that were
built pre-war and grandfathered in.
> ... one is within easy walking distance, for a healthy person, of
> certain basic facilities: some kind of grocery shop, a church, and a
> pub. Until recently post offices were also on that list; in Scotland,
> even in remote places, one can usually add a delicatessen and an
> Indian or Chinese take-away.
I was just playing around with this site, which claims to be able to
rank neighborhoods by "walkability":
The criteria it uses is a bit of a joke, as far as I can tell-- it
pays attention to rail access, but not busses; it doesn't seem to
comprehend the concept of hills -- but at least it's nice to see some
recognition that walkable neighborhoods are desireable and even
financially valuable.
> The whole notion of building communities where people have to drive to
> get to these things is bizarre. It reminds me of a notorious Arizona
> housing estate I once did real estate copywriting for, where the local
> supermarket had installed couches and a TV out of sympathy for all the
> people who hung out there because they had nowhere else to go.
That sounds like an odd one, in a number of ways... it's hard to know
where to begin.
Shopping Malls *used* to have places where people could sit and hang
out -- believe it or not, they were originally intended to act as
community centers, a substitute for "town squares" -- but the benches
have all disappeared from the newer Mall designs. You don't want
people just *sitting around* when they're supposed to be *spending
money*.
I believe you that this place in Arizona has so little there there that
people end up hanging out at the supermarket... but I've seen things
like this in San Francisco, where you'd think they'd have other places
to go.
The corner store downstairs from where I live has a television running
most of the time, and there used to be quite a scene of odd characters
hanging around down there, standing around, drinking beer, watching
sports, bullshitting about politics and so on... we used to think these
guys were funny, an odd kind of local color to have in what is
technically part of Noe Valley (which is supposed to be a relatively upscale
neighborhood, in a town where the "up" scales up pretty high). You
would *think* that these characters would have other places to go
(there's a park two blocks away in one direction, a bar two blocks away
in another, and multiple coffee houses within walking distance), but
they seemed to prefer standing around in relatively tight quarters in
this store.
There are multiple reasons why this might be... this scene is a
collection of the hold-outs, the people who have no desire to be slick
San Francisco yuppies, and yet aren't hip enough for the hipsters.
There's some economic pressure (hanging around in bars can be
expensive, much cheaper to buy at the corner store, if not exactly legal
to hang around and drink it there). There's a social angle, in that
the guy who runs the store is guaranteed to be there, so there's always
one friend around (whereas just dropping in spontaneously in the bar
you're likely to be on your own).
whisky-dave
stupidity with reference to this.
If a rival gang want to warn off another gang form dealing on their patch
who's the stupid one
the one that pulls out a music magazine or the one that pulls out a gun. ?
I've heard your criminals shoot guns off in to the air on certain occasions
and you
get approximately 12 fatalities a year through stray bullets
that are fired in to the air.
I was told that this act was actually against the law i.e it's banned.
So can you tell me how banning something like this stops it happening ?
>Here, you don't
> see someone carrying a gun. Approximately 5 million concealed carry
> permits have been issued in the US, but you seldom see them. Except in
> Wisconsin, where concealed carry's illegal, but open carry is allowed
> most places. Lots of holsters up noort, and calling the police for every
> weapon you see on someone's hip will get you quickly dinged for wasting
> police time.
Here we have a lot less deaths from firearm usage, and here it's the kids
showing off
and the drug dealers using them to frighten off the competition and
sometimes waving these
things about inevitable means they go off.
whisky-dave
"Jennie Kermode" <"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:slrnhfdgi9.54s...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk...
>> this very difficult without driving to a bar. The best way to reduce
>> drunk driving is to have walkable communities and good mass transit.
>
> odd about US culture from a UK perspective. Here, pretty much no matter
> within easy walking distance, for a healthy person, of certain basic
> facilities: some kind of grocery shop, a church, and a pub.
This is true, but what's also important is do you actually want to drink
in your local area. For me it's mostly NO. The best local pub is about
40mins
walk or a bus ride away, it's not far, but it's also not really worth the
effort either
in most cases. Quite a number of pubs have closed down locally recently and
I can't
really think of one where a band could play.
whisky-dave
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 17:06:53 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>> "NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4af40f5...@news.windstream.net...
>>> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:35:27 -0000, "whisky-dave"
>>> <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"NightMist" <night...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:4af1d173...@news.windstream.net...
>>>
>>>>> The point I was attempting to get across is that people who are
>>>>> willing and able to commit violence will. They will use whatever is
>>>>> to hand to do it.
>>>>
>>>>And if it's not to hand ?
>>>>JFK wasn't killed by a cricket bat[1] niether was john lennon.
>>>>
>>>>Do you think the killer(s) who every there are would have succseeded if
>>>>they
>>>>were armed with a cricket bat rather than a gun of some description ?
>>>
>>> In the case of Lennon it is entirely possible.
>>
>> But unlikely .
>>
>>
>>> I don't think that banning specific weapons will make much of a dent
>>> at all in coldly calculated murder. In those cases the person
>>> commiting the crime is going to obtain whatever weapon is desired,
>>> period.
>>
>> True, but restricting those weapons might help.
>
> Which weapons? Guns, kitchen knives, beer bottles, rocks....?
yes all of those, the more dangerous the weapon the closer contol
that is required that's why the USA isn;t too keen of certain contriee
aquiring nuclear
weapons because they are more dangerous than rocks.
Hiroshima & Nagasaki could have been caused by people throwing rocks.
>
>>> Looking at actual statistics, one would tend to conclude that illegal
>>> firearms are used more often in the comission of crimes than legal
>>> ones. Thus a ban would have minimal impact on crime rates, at least
>>> in the US.
>>
>> Aren't they already banned hence their illegality ?
>> So why use illegal guns ?
>
> They're illegal because they were stolen from their owners,
So now you're saying the state of the legality of the gun depends on it's
owner
rather than what it is used for.
> or because
> they're possessed by convicted felons, or because they've been modified
> in some way, or they were sold in some way that subverted a
> documentation process or they're in the wrong city. I'm not sure why or
> what you're asking about "So why use illegal guns?". Often they're
> illegal because a criminal possesses them.
Why would a criminal possess them for defence only I presume.
> But banning firearms doesn't mean
> that the criminal doesn't possess a gun anymore. He's already been
> banned from owning them in the first place.
Why ban him from owning one in the first place. ?
How do you know what he intends to do with that weapon.
Most peoples homes aren't large enough to put on bands, most don;t have the
equipment
even if they do have the space. Most homes are in residential areas go
figure that one out ;-)
So you'll have noise restrictions anyway, and I don;t think most home would
be licenced
for live music anyway. You then have to check out fiore escape routes which
is related to size
and capacity. And I've noticed you doing a Hester, which is difined as
changing what I say
in order to make it look as though I'm wrong.
Now loko more closily at the wording.
Me "allowing live music "
You "You don't care that music's forbidden "
There's distinct difference regard music and live music and acoustic live
music.
well at least islington Council think there is.
whisky-dave
"Satori" <dwis...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Bb4Jm.7096$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad...
That';s true our government scientist got the sack for giving out what
he considers as the facts in that alcohol and tobacco kill more people than
ecstasy and marijuana.
If you need more info his name is Professor David Nutt
Unfortunatly.
whisky-dave
"TenshiKurai9" <ten...@abyss.ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhfcmcr...@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
> Now I want to make a comedy film where the local jail is being filled
> with harmless stoners and during each one of the arrests, the cops are
> being painfully oblivious to the escalating severity of the crimes being
> committed by the non-stoners--even if it's right behind their backs.
Ah a documentary on real life then ;-)
whisky-dave
"Endymion" <disinte...@embarqmail.com> wrote in message
news:a1b10ed2-9673-4345...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Jennie's posts aren't showing up on Google, so i can't respond to them
> directly, so, Jennie wrote:
>
>> It does a lot to reduce accidents, which is the area which has
>> always caused me greatest concern. A shocking number of kids manage to
>> shoot themselves or each other whilst playing with their parents'
>> firearms in countries where they're freely available.
>
> Only if you have a very low and disproportionate standard for
> "shocking." We're talking maybe 100 a year in the US,
I think that's 100 too many.
> less than 2% of
> all accidental deaths among children,
So.
Can you explain how having a gun or having the right to have a gun
protects these children.
http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/gci/InsidePage.aspx?cId=thenewsstar&sParam=32008579.story
Stray bullets pierced the walls of a River Ridge apartment building, killing
a 7-year-old girl as she slept early Sunday.
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/oct/28/girl-killed-stray-bullet-market/
A 16-year-old girl helping her mother set up a food stand at an outdoor
market in Rosarito Beach became the latest victim of violence yesterday when
she was struck by a stray bullet as police and armed suspects battled
nearby.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/17/AR2007031700002.html
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/local/crime/article/BRUN88_20090707-230201/278690/
just type in stray bullets kill..... in to google
Stary bukllets are't rocket science ;-)
Now work out where these stray bullet come from, it's not rocks or knives
or rolled up music magazines.
> and the rate has been falling
> steadily for decades. Swimming pools and household chemicals and
> pharmaceuticals kill far more, and cars, about 30 times as many, but
> we don't ban them, do we?
Well some chemicals are banned, and parents should keep dangerous chemicals
out of reach of children and students, in fact we (university) have even had
to throw
out furniture polish because we don't know it's a chemical composition.
Which I find a bit OTT. We have speed limits for car, why ?
We have laws about which side of teh road to dribve on even though they are
differtn from the USA, it's not like driving on the 'wrong' side of the road
kills people
compared with driving on the correct side.
What do you think would happen if they removed the law about driving on one
a particular side was removed, do you think accidents would reduce because
of the few that got killed because they were on the wrong side.
> So we're back to Dave's original fallacy:
It can't be a fallacy if it's true.
>yes, banning guns does
> reduce fatal *gun* accidents among children - but fatal gun accidents
> among children are so uncommon that the effect on the overall rate of
> fatal accidents among children is negligible.
But children aren't the only things that get hurt by guns.
NightMist
<whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>news:slrnhf8q77....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>>> Looking at actual statistics, one would tend to conclude that illegal
>>>> firearms are used more often in the comission of crimes than legal
>>>> ones. Thus a ban would have minimal impact on crime rates, at least
>>>> in the US.
>>>
>>> Aren't they already banned hence their illegality ?
>>> So why use illegal guns ?
>>
>> They're illegal because they were stolen from their owners,
>So now you're saying the state of the legality of the gun depends on it's
>owner
>rather than what it is used for.
Guns are regulated in the US.
You can't just pop down to a shop, buy one, put it in your pocket, and
go home. Hand guns in particular require licensing, which involves a
background check at the least, and depending on the state may also
require fingerprinting, safety classes, and who knows what else. Guns
for hunting and farm utility are less regulated, but at a minimum you
usually have to provide proof that you have completed the game
department's safety and management classes when you buy the gun.
Usually buying ammunition also requires you to provide identification
including an address.
Some guns are flat out illegal for private ownership.
Persons previously convicted of violent crimes are not allowed to own
guns.
All this varies a bit from state to state.
An illegal weapon is one that was obtained bypassing legal channels,
or was altered in a way that makes it illegal. Things that make a
weapon illegal via alteration might be as simple as removing the
serial number, or it could be any number of physical modifications.
For example shortening the barrel on a shotgun, or refitting a pistol
to make it automatic.
Usually illegal guns are bought by someone who could not get one
legally, from someone who is not supposed to have them legally much
less be selling them.
In addition to the obvious, that people who could not buy a gun
legally might try to get one illegally, the advantage of an illegal
gun to a criminal is that it is not registered to them and thus cannot
be traced through the standard legal channels, or they might get a
weapon that is not legal for sale any road.
>> But banning firearms doesn't mean
>> that the criminal doesn't possess a gun anymore. He's already been
>> banned from owning them in the first place.
>
>Why ban him from owning one in the first place. ?
>How do you know what he intends to do with that weapon.
Now you are just pretending to be ingenuous.
>>
>> Let's draw a comparison: Pretend that instead of being at the pub, your
>> party was being held at a friend's house, and you intended to have
>> music. Now, how much good would instructing pub operators to forbid live
>> music do in thwarting your birthday plans? Absolutely none, right?
>> 'cause yours isn't in a pub, it's in a friend's house. You don't care
>> that music's forbidden in the pub.
>
>Most peoples homes aren't large enough to put on bands, most don;t have the
>equipment
>even if they do have the space. Most homes are in residential areas go
>figure that one out ;-)
>So you'll have noise restrictions anyway, and I don;t think most home would
>be licenced
>for live music anyway. You then have to check out fiore escape routes which
>is related to size
>and capacity. And I've noticed you doing a Hester, which is difined as
>changing what I say
>in order to make it look as though I'm wrong.
>Now loko more closily at the wording.
>
>Me "allowing live music "
>You "You don't care that music's forbidden "
>
>There's distinct difference regard music and live music and acoustic live
>music.
>well at least islington Council think there is.
>
You have ADD don't you?
NightMist
--
Legolas is my house elf
whisky-dave
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:45:22 -0000, "whisky-dave"
> <whisk...@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>>news:slrnhf8q77....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>
>>>>> Looking at actual statistics, one would tend to conclude that illegal
>>>>> firearms are used more often in the comission of crimes than legal
>>>>> ones. Thus a ban would have minimal impact on crime rates, at least
>>>>> in the US.
>>>>
>>>> Aren't they already banned hence their illegality ?
>>>> So why use illegal guns ?
>>>
>>> They're illegal because they were stolen from their owners,
>>So now you're saying the state of the legality of the gun depends on it's
>>owner
>>rather than what it is used for.
>
> Guns are regulated in the US.
We allow the police and army to have guns, s o we too regulate them.
> You can't just pop down to a shop, buy one, put it in your pocket, and
> go home. Hand guns in particular require licensing, which involves a
> background check at the least, and depending on the state may also
> require fingerprinting, safety classes, and who knows what else. Guns
> for hunting and farm utility are less regulated, but at a minimum you
> usually have to provide proof that you have completed the game
> department's safety and management classes when you buy the gun.
> Usually buying ammunition also requires you to provide identification
> including an address.
Why ?
> Some guns are flat out illegal for private ownership.
> Persons previously convicted of violent crimes are not allowed to own
> guns.
Why ?
> All this varies a bit from state to state.
>
> An illegal weapon is one that was obtained bypassing legal channels,
> or was altered in a way that makes it illegal.
Same as here basically.
> Things that make a
> weapon illegal via alteration might be as simple as removing the
> serial number, or it could be any number of physical modifications.
> For example shortening the barrel on a shotgun, or refitting a pistol
> to make it automatic.
> Usually illegal guns are bought by someone who could not get one
> legally, from someone who is not supposed to have them legally much
> less be selling them.
Well in the USA I guess you have more reasons for legally owning guns
than we have in the UK. So you still ban guns, but have less ristrictions
on guns than we do, unlike alcohol, where we allow anyone to drink that's
over 18
whereas in some states I believe you have to be 21.
So you ban alcohol more than we do why, it's that someone can drink it
illegaly
causing another death is it ?
Is it easier to purchase something that is more likely to kill someone
than something that distorts yuor visions and perceptions of other making
a sexual encouter more likely ?
well I guess you have these frat parties, I've heard about them from 2
american flatmates
sorry room mates that I've had.
> In addition to the obvious, that people who could not buy a gun
> legally might try to get one illegally, the advantage of an illegal
> gun to a criminal is that it is not registered to them and thus cannot
> be traced through the standard legal channels, or they might get a
> weapon that is not legal for sale any road.
So it must be easier to locate a gun that is legal and then use whatever
method to steal that gun and use it illegally than buying it legally to
commit a crime.
The problem is if something is legal for someone someone else will
get one illegally, that's why there's a distinct lack of people dieing from
klingon disruptors . In the start trek world people get killed from these
guns
both legally shot in war and by those stealing them or buying them
illegally.
So the only thing that is similar in the US & UK is when a crime is
committed
using a firearm it is virtually always an illegal firearm.
So why have you so many illegal firearms in circulation.
I think it's something to do with the number of legal firearms in existance,
but you don't seem to equate the two.
>>> But banning firearms doesn't mean
>>> that the criminal doesn't possess a gun anymore. He's already been
>>> banned from owning them in the first place.
>>
>>Why ban him from owning one in the first place. ?
>>How do you know what he intends to do with that weapon.
>
> Now you are just pretending to be ingenuous.
It's just that you don;t seem very concerned that a person that wants to
use a gun illegally will find it easier to obtain such a gun in a country
where they
are relatively easy to get compared to a country where they are more
difficult to get.
Are you saying I go to Phil Collins concerts ?
Joseph Brenner
TenshiKurai9 <ten...@abyss.ninehells.com> writes:
> Peter H. Coffin <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote:
>> Satori wrote:
>>> But I think we look at the phenomena of drunk driving the wrong way.
>>> People like to drink with their friends. US-style Suburban living makes
>>> this very difficult without driving to a bar. The best way to reduce
>>> drunk driving is to have walkable communities and good mass transit. If
>>> I could walk or subway to my favorite bar, I'd find myself in the "I'm
>>> ready to go home, but I need to wait to sober up first" situation less
>>> often. If MADD really cared about drunk driving, they'd push for more
>>> light rail.
>>
>> And for transit to run at least an hour past local closing time... I'm
>> looking at you, Boston.
>
> For non-locals and those who haven't done research at some
> point-in-time, like Peter here, most of our transit have last subway and
> bus runs happen after midnight and before 1 AM. Closing time in Boston
> is 2 AM. This is also why non-driving, suburban-living Tenshi doesn't
> have a club life and only has attended the beginning of a limited number
> events.
Kids-these-days.... I can remember when a young woman would just expect
to leave the club with someone else, though it might take some time to
get back home, exactly.
> What's worse is the regional transit systems of other parts of the state
> where you can at least come-back from a job that gets-off in the
> late afternoon/early evening, but no later.
This sort of thing is all-too-common throughout the United States.
Public transit is optimized [1] for day shift workers. My conclusion
is that if all possible you want to live near where you want to be,
rather than near work. Work you can get to by transit, but if you want
to go out at night you're supposed to join the legions of drunk
drivers.
[1] The phrase "is optimized" isn't quite right, of course. I mean
something more like "has suckage reduced".
> Place where I don't want to live because it's more difficult to get back
> from Boston without a car, Hull, MA. There's a commuter boat and a bus
> line contracted-out to a private service from the T. With the bus, you
> first have to get to Hingham Center and then the latest bus leaves there
> at 7:35 on a weekday. On a Saturday (no Sunday service), it's 6:45. On
> a weekday with one commuter boat, you can leave Long Wharf, Boston at
> 8:55 PM and on another commuter boat, you can leave Logan Ferry Terminal
> at 9:10 PM. Saturday you have to resort to the bus.
The need to do transfers is the bane of public transit. As a
rule-of-thumb, a commute with one transfer is liveable, two or more
transfers isn't. There's often a way to improve the situation with
bicycles: bike-train-bike is much better than bus-train-bus...
though if they won't let you bring your bike on the train, you need
two bikes on each end, plus locks, and they better not be *good* bikes,
unless there are bike lockers around, and if you don't have any access
at all to motorized transit, how are you supposed to position that bike
on the far end?
Elder
author.]
In article <slrnhfg3nj.5h3...@laocoon.triffid.demon.co.uk>,
"Jennie Kermode"@triffid.demon.co.uk says...
> The ridiculous thing about making airguns legal when other
> handguns are not is that it can be impossible to tell them apart from a
> distance; plus we have several incidents of serious injury caused by
> airguns every year. Generally the problem is that lack of licensing
> means they easily get into the hands of kids who use them to shoot each
> other or (in a worrying recent fad) members of the emergency services
> responding to fake call-outs or arson.
>
I know what you mean. I had an airpistol and air-rifle as a kid. I was
allowed to use it in the garden, or supervised, in the woods when I was
younger, but not to hunt. But the amount of times I was shot in the arse
by local scally twats with gatt guns was silly. I never did get the
crossbow I wanted, but now I'm a member of the local archery club and
shoot recurve bow and it is incredible to see the discipline the club
juniors show. Ironically, an air-rifle can be used to hunt especially
vermin, but you can't hunt anything legally with a bow.
At least carrying a braced up bow in public out of a case is a bit
obvious, even if it can do a lot of damage, especially a hunting spec
compound which has enough power to take down a bear, but when properly
setup can be shop by an average teenage male or a small build woman
without any effort.
Octavian
I would have to say that I am more likely to have a drink at my
friend's place and then drive home than I am to drive to a bar, drink,
and drive home. Then again, I don't go to bars here in Salem, I'll
head up to Portland for a night out at a goth club and then drive home
tired and an hour-long drive, so that definitely colours my idea of
what I might want to have before driving home...
~Octavian
Octavian
> Peter H. Coffin wrote:
> > The population of prisons here is largely made up of people arrested for
> > possession of assorted drugs, with possible other crime related. (35%
> > or so are "possession" charges of some kind, without ancillary crime
> > worthy of jail time. Some fool gets pulled over for driving too fast
> > or loitering and oh wow look at that, he's got a baggy with a couple
> > of grams of cannibis in his pocket or a couple of empty beer cans in
> > the back seat, so he's going to jail instead of getting a ticket.) It's
> > unfortunate and expensive, but it's hard to convince the general public
> > that these things are not worth filling jails over, so it continues.
>
> Nobody's really trying to convince the general public of that. I think
> if some politicians would have the courage to talk about the costs of
> the drug war, we could get on the road to legalization of marijuana. But
> everyone's too afraid that they'll be labeled "soft on crime", or just
> generally dirty fucking hippies. So we don't really have the
> conversation at all.
We have all kinds of 'dirty fucking hippies' here in Oregon, but then
I guess that's why we're one of the few states with a legal medical
marijuana program..
~Octavian
whisky-dave
"Elder" <carl....@bouncing-czechs.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.25613be3e...@news.individual.net...
> [This followup was posted to alt.gothic and a copy was sent to the cited
> author.]
>
> In article <slrnhf8r4h....@abyss.ninehells.com>,
> hel...@ninehells.com says...
>> Your criminals must be a lot more stupid than ours then. Here, you don't
>> see someone carrying a gun. Approximately 5 million concealed carry
>> permits have been issued in the US, but you seldom see them. Except in
>> Wisconsin, where concealed carry's illegal, but open carry is allowed
>> most places. Lots of holsters up noort, and calling the police for every
>> weapon you see on someone's hip will get you quickly dinged for wasting
>> police time.
>>
> You can't even carry an uncased shotgun/rifle in public even if you lave
> a license for it in the UK. At the very least it must be in a locked
> softcase but even that might get you stopped and searched and warned.
>
> Handguns of any kind (except air weapons) are banned out right. We don't
> even have an olympic handgun target team anymore because of the handgun
> ban.
I do think it's a real shame for shooter people[1] that it comes to this.
But due to the knife restrictions, guns have become more popualr weapon
of choice but since guns are more difficult to get and the 'punishment' for
having one
is quite stiff the latest crazy is dangerous dogs as weapons.
50% increase in the last 6 months of instances where dogs have been used as
a weapon.
Gangs are getting and training bitbulls to fight, they torture them in order
to make
them more aggressive. So there's now calls for compulsory dog chipping and
registaring.
I've been at a bus stop where a girl was forced to kiss a youth or he'd set
his pitbull on her.
[1] The term I'm using to decribe those genuinely interested in shooting as
a sport or
guns as machinery.
Peter H. Coffin
> I do think it's a real shame for shooter people[1] that it comes
> to this. But due to the knife restrictions, guns have become more
> popualr weapon of choice but since guns are more difficult to get
> and the 'punishment' for having one is quite stiff the latest crazy
> is dangerous dogs as weapons. 50% increase in the last 6 months of
> instances where dogs have been used as a weapon. Gangs are getting and
> training bitbulls to fight, they torture them in order to make them
> more aggressive. So there's now calls for compulsory dog chipping and
> registaring. I've been at a bus stop where a girl was forced to kiss a
> youth or he'd set his pitbull on her.
Now, see, if she were carrying a firearm, she could just shoot the
dog...
--
Premature optimization is the root of all evil.
-- Sir Tony Hoare
whisky-dave
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhfj3ui....@abyss.ninehells.com...
Why shoot the dog ?
I'd have shot the shit holding the lead and his two mates.
Problem solved, forever :-)
Peter H. Coffin
Still have an angry dog to deal with then, that's also currently being
freaked out by loud noises and bright lights.
--
I don't see what C++ has to do with keeping people from shooting themselves
in the foot. C++ will happily load the gun, offer you a drink to steady
your nerves, and help you aim.
-- Peter da Silva
Dark Phoenix
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:44:47 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhfj3ui....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:01:53 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do think it's a real shame for shooter people[1] that it comes
>>>> to this. But due to the knife restrictions, guns have become more
>>>> popualr weapon of choice but since guns are more difficult to get
>>>> and the 'punishment' for having one is quite stiff the latest crazy
>>>> is dangerous dogs as weapons. 50% increase in the last 6 months of
>>>> instances where dogs have been used as a weapon. Gangs are getting and
>>>> training bitbulls to fight, they torture them in order to make them
>>>> more aggressive. So there's now calls for compulsory dog chipping and
>>>> registaring. I've been at a bus stop where a girl was forced to kiss a
>>>> youth or he'd set his pitbull on her.
>>>
>>> Now, see, if she were carrying a firearm, she could just shoot the
>>> dog...
>>
>> Why shoot the dog ?
>> I'd have shot the shit holding the lead and his two mates.
>> Problem solved, forever :-)
>
> Still have an angry dog to deal with then, that's also currently being
> freaked out by loud noises and bright lights.
>
Dog's probably not angry, a pitbull just standing there can be rather
menacing, even if all he's thinking of is kibble. And depending on how the
shit holding him had been treating him, the dog might fall down and worship
whoever shot the shit. I have to agree with Dave on this one.
Shit, was that the universe ripping open?
--
Laurie Brown, Dark Phoenix
dark_p...@netw.com
http://www.associatedcontent.com/user/103910/laurie_brown.html
"To destroy the Western tradition of independent thought, it is not
necessary to burn books. All we have to do is leave them unread for a couple
of generations."
--Robert Maynard Hutchens.
Elder
author.]
In article <hdbknh$e4s$1@qmul>, whisk...@final.front.ear says...
>
> I do think it's a real shame for shooter people[1] that it comes to this.
> But due to the knife restrictions, guns have become more popualr weapon
> of choice but since guns are more difficult to get and the 'punishment' for
> having one
> is quite stiff the latest crazy is dangerous dogs as weapons.
>
I tend to drink in rocker and biker pubs, or scruffy real pubs in small
towns, and over the years I've had a few guns offered to me by mates.
Funniest one was in the 80's. It was a 10 guage single barrel shotgun,
gun down on the barrel and stock until it was the size of a pistol.
I can imagine what sort of scatter that thing made when fired. I was
offered it for £25. I politley declined.
Peter H. Coffin
> I tend to drink in rocker and biker pubs, or scruffy real pubs in
> small towns, and over the years I've had a few guns offered to me by
> mates. Funniest one was in the 80's. It was a 10 guage single barrel
> shotgun, gun down on the barrel and stock until it was the size of a
> pistol.
>
> I can imagine what sort of scatter that thing made when fired. I was
> offered it for �25. I politley declined.
An aquaintence had something like that, that he called "New Broom", on
the supposition that it would sweep a room clean. I'm sure it violated a
dozen laws merely by existing.
--
It's not hard, it's just asking for a visit by the fuckup fairy.
-- Peter da Silva
whisky-dave
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:44:47 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnhfj3ui....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>>> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:01:53 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do think it's a real shame for shooter people[1] that it comes
>>>> to this. But due to the knife restrictions, guns have become more
>>>> popualr weapon of choice but since guns are more difficult to get
>>>> and the 'punishment' for having one is quite stiff the latest crazy
>>>> is dangerous dogs as weapons. 50% increase in the last 6 months of
>>>> instances where dogs have been used as a weapon. Gangs are getting and
>>>> training bitbulls to fight, they torture them in order to make them
>>>> more aggressive. So there's now calls for compulsory dog chipping and
>>>> registaring. I've been at a bus stop where a girl was forced to kiss a
>>>> youth or he'd set his pitbull on her.
>>>
>>> Now, see, if she were carrying a firearm, she could just shoot the
>>> dog...
>>
>> Why shoot the dog ?
>> I'd have shot the shit holding the lead and his two mates.
>> Problem solved, forever :-)
>
> Still have an angry dog to deal with then,
But shooting the dog(s) will never solve the problem,
and as some saying banning something doesn;t help, it won't stop him getting
another dog, only my solition works which is eliminating the person :)
>that's also currently being
> freaked out by loud noises and bright lights.
Then it shouldn't go to raves.
whisky-dave
[This followup was posted to alt.gothic and a copy was sent to the cited
author.]
In article <hdbknh$e4s$1@qmul>, whisk...@final.front.ear says...
>
> I do think it's a real shame for shooter people[1] that it comes to this.
> But due to the knife restrictions, guns have become more popualr weapon
> of choice but since guns are more difficult to get and the 'punishment'
> for
> having one
> is quite stiff the latest crazy is dangerous dogs as weapons.
>
I tend to drink in rocker and biker pubs, or scruffy real pubs in small
towns, and over the years I've had a few guns offered to me by mates.
Funniest one was in the 80's. It was a 10 guage single barrel shotgun,
gun down on the barrel and stock until it was the size of a pistol.
Sounds like the pub in ladbrook grove.
whisky-dave
"Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
news:slrnhfj3ui....@abyss.ninehells.com...
Well the other problem would be that she was a school girl, about 14-15 I
think.
if she had a gun he and his mates would probbaly quite easily take it from
her.
Then that'd be another illegal gun on the streets.
heard last night on the news that killing someone with a knife will now mean
a 25 year jail sentence which in the UK will probably mean released in 10-12
years.
Peter H. Coffin
> heard last night on the news that killing someone with a knife will
> now mean a 25 year jail sentence which in the UK will probably mean
> released in 10-12 years.
And how much for killing someone with a Zima bottle or a rock?
--
Judging by this particular thread, many people in this group spent their
school years taking illogical, pointless orders from morons and having
their will to live systematically crushed. And people say school doesn't
prepare kids for the real world. -- Rayner, in the Monastery
whisky-dave
> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:35:33 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>
>> heard last night on the news that killing someone with a knife will
>> now mean a 25 year jail sentence which in the UK will probably mean
>> released in 10-12 years.
>
> And how much for killing someone with a Zima bottle or a rock?
No idea, not sure what a zima bottle is, but why should it be any different
?
Maybe we should let people off if they kill someone with a music magazine,
maybe that'd get rid of the gun and knife problem. :-?
Peter H. Coffin
>
> "Peter H. Coffin" <hel...@ninehells.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnhflotb....@abyss.ninehells.com...
>> On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:35:33 -0000, whisky-dave wrote:
>>
>>> heard last night on the news that killing someone with a knife will
>>> now mean a 25 year jail sentence which in the UK will probably mean
>>> released in 10-12 years.
>>
>> And how much for killing someone with a Zima bottle or a rock?
>
> No idea, not sure what a zima bottle is,
Zima's an alco-pop that manly men don't drink.
> but why should it be any different ?
Different means seem to often end up with different punishments for the
same crime.
> Maybe we should let people off if they kill someone with a music magazine,
> maybe that'd get rid of the gun and knife problem. :-?
You'd just end up with bans on magazines...
--
91. I will not ignore the messenger that stumbles in exhausted and obviously
agitated until my personal grooming or current entertainment is finished.
It might actually be important.
--Peter Anspach's list of things to do as an Evil Overlord