Re: What Makes a substance Bizarre?

[Stan Barr]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:03 -0500, Charles Richmond
<nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
> "Stan Barr" <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnkmv7vu...@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de...
>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:58:14 -0400, Peter Flass
>> <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> When was the last time anyone ordered a bayonet charge?
>>
>> Falklands, Afghanistan. There's a reason the British Army still
>> issue them...they're very effective. To quote a character in an old
>> British TV series "They don't like it up 'em."
>>
>
> The British used the Gurkhas in the Falklands. Their reputation preceded
> them. I read that when the Argentinians saw the Gurkhas charging, they
> turned tail and ran!!! Nasty little devils, those Gurkhas!!!

Very nice friendly guys, well liked by everyone (on their side!).

--
Cheers,
Stan Barr plan.b .at. dsl .dot. pipex .dot. com

The future was never like this!

[Dan Espen]

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:

> greymausg wrote:
>> On 2013-04-17, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 10:39 am, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last month I read the Scientific American article on the incestuous
>>>> relationship between the FDA and the drug industry.  I don't need any
>>>> education on the process.
>>>
>>> What is troubling is that drugs that aren't very effective still get
>>> approved.
>>>
>>> Also, the ads by big pharma are disturbing--virtually promising
>>> miracles which is b/s. It's disgusting they're allowed to grossly
>>> exaggerate their claims.a
>>
>>
>> Aspirin, according to what I read, would never be approved if `invented'
>> nowadays.
>
> Under FDA rules, right.
>
>>I spent a while the other day listening to the dangers of
>> paracet* from a medical person ("He stepped out of the shop, swallowed
>> a couple, crumbled and died")
>
> Paracet?
>
> I know Percaset (sp?) is dangerous. Jim used one and thought he was
> going to die.

Okay, you have a computer.
Now explain why you can't look words up.

http://www.webmd.com/drugs/drug-57571-Paracet+Oral.aspx?drugid=57571&drugname=Paracet+Oral
<http://tinyurl.com/dytnvgu>

Assuming you can't look up "acetaminophen" either, that's Tylenol.

The other drug you can't look up is Percocet.
That's acetaminophen and Oxycodone.
And since you can't look up Oxycodone, it's an Opioid.

Percocet is not "dangerous". (Unless you abuse it or are allergic.)

What is dangerous is know-nothings spreading mis-information.

You sort of wallow in ignorance don't you?

--
Dan Espen

[Scott Lurndal]

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 18-Apr-13 09:27, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>> On 17-Apr-13 12:02, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>> On Apr 17, 11:53 am, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>> Conversatives have long felt that govt shouldn't provide
>>>>> welfare, that any almost person is capable of providing for
>>>>> themselves, and cite the early days. But back then most people
>>>>> lived on a farm and could grow their own food and get by. Today
>>>>> lots of people have no land at all and others very limited
>>>>> amounts, so growing food isn't practical.
>>>>
>>>> Things were different when farmland was free for the asking. Once
>>>> all the (decent) farmland was "taken" and the banks (and land
>>>> speculators) got involved, we recreated the same economic problems
>>>> that caused most of our ancestors to flee Europe in the first
>>>> place.
>>>
>>> Take a look at the waste of [what middle-classers call] lawns. It's
>>> a monoculture, requires lots of labor and resources and creates
>>> poisoning with over-fertilizing and weed killer. There is plenty of
>>> land for gardens, even in NYC. People aren't willing to do the
>>> work.
>>
>> Urban (and suburban) gardens are a hobby, not a practical food source;
>> there is nowhere near enough land to feed all the people there. Nor
>> could all those people _afford_ to buy rural farmland.
>
>Sounds like you didn't grow up poor, where poor means no cash flow.

Poor means poor.

>My folks fed 5 kids on 2 acres of garden. Dad hunted and we all
>fished. Other meat was butchering chickens, a pig, or a cow bought
>from elsewhere since we didn't have room to grow the pig or the cow.

So you didn't feed 5 kids and two adults on two acres, you needed
many extra acres to support the meat you'd purchase.

Assuming that 2 acres will support 7 people, you'd only need over
a million acres to support the population of NYC.

>
>>
>> The migration from farms to cities started when all the (decent)
>> farmland was "taken" and the banks (and land speculators) got involved,
>> driving up the price of land. At that point, the "American dream" of
>> independence evaporated for most of the population.
>
>Migration off the farm happened because of industrial improvements.

No, migration off the farm happened because you can't subdivide a farm
into infinite pieces. Farm families were large, a necessity to make
ends meet. Only the eldest would usually be in line to inherit the
farm, so the remaining offspring had to go somewhere.

[Scott Lurndal]

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>greymausg wrote:
>> On 2013-04-17, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 10:39 am, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last month I read the Scientific American article on the incestuous
>>>> relationship between the FDA and the drug industry.  I don't need any
>>>> education on the process.
>>>
>>> What is troubling is that drugs that aren't very effective still get
>>> approved.
>>>
>>> Also, the ads by big pharma are disturbing--virtually promising
>>> miracles which is b/s. It's disgusting they're allowed to grossly
>>> exaggerate their claims.a
>>
>>
>> Aspirin, according to what I read, would never be approved if `invented'
>> nowadays.
>
>Under FDA rules, right.

Another urban legend.

There have been (mostly right-wingers) folks parroting this or the companion
factoid "If it were invented today, aspirin would probably have to be prescribed
by a doctor".

In neither case is there any factual background to support this.

Another common saying was "If aspirin were invented today, it would never
be approved because we don't understand how it works".

None of these statements have any factual basis.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 08:15, Walter Bushell wrote:
> In article <kkrdl3$474$3...@dont-email.me>, Peter Flass
> <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 4/18/2013 4:09 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> I agree exactly with this!!! Let the Democrats have their gun
>>> background checks... *no* harm in getting the checks. Will it
>>> solve the problem or substantially change anything??? No, but
>>> folks can "move on" from the gun control issue.
>>
>> They may not help much unless coupled with some method of getting
>> the dangerously mentally ill off the streets. We should also go
>> after violence on TV and especially video games. Nothing is going
>> to be a complete solution, but don't let the perfect be the enemy
>> of the good.
>
> I tend to disagree with the harmlessness of background checks. Tell
> your doctor you're depressed or the doctor so diagnosis's you and no
> guns for you and that will discourage people from seeing doctors.

Federal law only prohibits purchase of guns by people who have been
_adjudicated_ mentally ill, i.e. committed to a mental institution by a
judge, and we need a registry of such people similar to the registry of
convicted felons. Merely telling your doctor that you're depressed
would not be enough to get on it.

A felon's voting and gun rights can be restored by a judge. The same
provision for the mentally ill hasn't been needed to date since there's
no registry, but that should be corrected as well.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[Dan Espen]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>greymausg wrote:
>>> On 2013-04-17, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>>>> On Apr 17, 10:39 am, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Last month I read the Scientific American article on the incestuous

>>>>> relationship between the FDA and the drug industry.  I don't need any

>>>>> education on the process.
>>>>
>>>> What is troubling is that drugs that aren't very effective still get
>>>> approved.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the ads by big pharma are disturbing--virtually promising
>>>> miracles which is b/s. It's disgusting they're allowed to grossly
>>>> exaggerate their claims.a
>>>
>>>
>>> Aspirin, according to what I read, would never be approved if `invented'
>>> nowadays.
>>
>>Under FDA rules, right.
>
> Another urban legend.
>
> There have been (mostly right-wingers) folks parroting this or the companion
> factoid "If it were invented today, aspirin would probably have to be prescribed
> by a doctor".
>
> In neither case is there any factual background to support this.
>
> Another common saying was "If aspirin were invented today, it would never
> be approved because we don't understand how it works".
>
> None of these statements have any factual basis.

A disturbing trend.

Seems like a lot of people are putting ignorance on a pedestal and
bowing down to it.

I guess Jindal calling for "we've got to stop being the stupid party"
isn't doing any good.

Not that stupid has just one party affiliation, but we do have one party
actively promoting stupid. Rick Santorum: "We will never have the
elite, smart people on our side".


--
Dan Espen

[Walter Bushell]

In article <PM0004DAB...@ac8138b3.ipt.aol.com>,

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:

> greymausg wrote:
> > On 2013-04-17, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

> >> On Apr 17, 10:39 am, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Last month I read the Scientific American article on the incestuous

> >>> relationship between the FDA and the drug industry.  I don't need any

> >>> education on the process.
> >>
> >> What is troubling is that drugs that aren't very effective still get
> >> approved.
> >>
> >> Also, the ads by big pharma are disturbing--virtually promising
> >> miracles which is b/s. It's disgusting they're allowed to grossly
> >> exaggerate their claims.a
> >
> >
> > Aspirin, according to what I read, would never be approved if `invented'
> > nowadays.
>
> Under FDA rules, right.
>

> >I spent a while the other day listening to the dangers of
> > paracet* from a medical person ("He stepped out of the shop, swallowed
> > a couple, crumbled and died")
>
> Paracet?
>
> I know Percaset (sp?) is dangerous. Jim used one and thought he was
> going to die.
>

> /BAH

yes, it contains acetaminophen.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 10:33, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> Urban (and suburban) gardens are a hobby, not a practical food
>>> source; there is nowhere near enough land to feed all the people
>>> there. Nor could all those people _afford_ to buy rural
>>> farmland.
>>
>> Sounds like you didn't grow up poor, where poor means no cash
>> flow.
>
> Poor means poor.

Circular definitions are not useful. Poor means low income; destitute
means low wealth. The former is often abused to mean the latter, but
typically they go together so it doesn't matter.

>> My folks fed 5 kids on 2 acres of garden. Dad hunted and we all
>> fished. Other meat was butchering chickens, a pig, or a cow
>> bought from elsewhere since we didn't have room to grow the pig or
>> the cow.
>
> So you didn't feed 5 kids and two adults on two acres, you needed
> many extra acres to support the meat you'd purchase.
>
> Assuming that 2 acres will support 7 people, you'd only need over a
> million acres to support the population of NYC.

NYC's population is 8,336,697 (2012), so that's 2,381,913ac. NYC has a
land area of 195,072ac, which is less than a tenth of what would be
required even under that low-ball assumption.

>>> The migration from farms to cities started when all the (decent)
>>> farmland was "taken" and the banks (and land speculators) got
>>> involved, driving up the price of land. At that point, the
>>> "American dream" of independence evaporated for most of the
>>> population.
>>
>> Migration off the farm happened because of industrial
>> improvements.
>
> No, migration off the farm happened because you can't subdivide a
> farm into infinite pieces. Farm families were large, a necessity to
> make ends meet. Only the eldest would usually be in line to inherit
> the farm, so the remaining offspring had to go somewhere.

Before we ran out of "new" farmland, the other offspring simply got a
new farm of their own. Occasionally, a large family would pack up and
move west for new homesteads, freeing up "old" land that could be
purchased (for a nominal amount) by expanding neighbor families.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 05:20, sdrat wrote:
> "Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
> news:kkqvc0$ab7$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On 18-Apr-13 23:36, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>> In <kkprva$plg$1...@dont-email.me>, on 04/18/2013 at 05:29 PM,
>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> said:
>>>> While it varies slightly between states, the general rule is
>>>> that "deadly force" is only justified to stop murder, rape or
>>>> suicide.
>>>
>>> Suicide? What's the logic in killing someone to prevent him from
>>> killing himself?
>>
>> I suspect the idea is that if someone is already going to kill
>> himself, there is no reason to restrict the force used to try to
>> stop him; if you accidentally kill him, that's no worse than doing
>> nothing at all.
>
> I just don't buy your claim that anywhere allows the use of deadly
> force to stop a suicide.

From the Texas Penal Code:
"Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
...
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or
deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an
emergency."

Incidentally, it is not unusual to see such scenarios on TV: the perp
goes to shoot himself, and the cops shoot him in the arm (or shoulder)
to stop him--and then arrest him.

In contrast, if the same perp points his gun at the cops, they shoot to
kill, which falls under a completely different justification:

"Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is
justified in using deadly force against another:
...
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
...
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
or aggravated robbery."

>> For instance, imagine shooting someone (a use of "deadly force") in
>> the arm to stop him from shooting himself in the head.
>
> That’s not deadly force.

"Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
...
(3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor
to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of
causing, death or serious bodily injury."

Shooting someone can clearly cause "death or serious bodily injury",
regardless of where you intend to hit them, so it always qualifies as
deadly force.

These examples are from Texas because that's what I can cite off the top
of my head, but you will find something similar in every US state, with
minor differences in the details and wording.

[Charlie Gibbs]

In article <kkpqcd$for$1...@dont-email.me>, ste...@sprunk.org
(Stephen Sprunk) writes:

> According to the CDC, there were 851 accidental shootings in 2011.
> That's a tragedy, sure, but pales in comparison to the 19,766 suicides
> and 11,101 homicides.

And 32,367 traffic fatalities.

--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 8:44 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> They may not help much unless coupled with some method of getting the
> dangerously mentally ill off the streets.  We should also go after
> violence on TV and especially video games.  Nothing is going to be a
> complete solution, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

As mentioned, it is very difficult to define who is 'dangerously
mentally ill' until after they actually do something.

One of the problems with this issue is creating a class of 'thought
crime'--in that just thinking about something bad becomes cause for
lockup. Indeed, it could make matters worse, as troubled people who
want help refuse to seek it due to fear they'll be imprisoned if they
share their thoughts with a counselor. It's like that now with some
heinous crimes.

For the guy in Newton CT, it seems that while it was clear he was
troubled, I don't think there was evidence he was violent or harbored
such tendencies.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 10:02, jmfbahciv wrote:
> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> On 18-Apr-13 09:27, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>> Take a look at the waste of [what middle-classers call] lawns.
>>> It's a monoculture, requires lots of labor and resources and
>>> creates poisoning with over-fertilizing and weed killer. There
>>> is plenty of land for gardens, even in NYC. People aren't
>>> willing to do the work.
>>

>> Urban (and suburban) gardens are a hobby, not a practical food
>> source; there is nowhere near enough land to feed all the people
>> there. Nor could all those people _afford_ to buy rural farmland.
>
> Sounds like you didn't grow up poor, where poor means no cash flow.

> My folks fed 5 kids on 2 acres of garden. Dad hunted and we all
> fished.

Hunting and fishing in your 2-acre garden doesn't sound productive.

> Other meat was butchering chickens, a pig, or a cow bought
> from elsewhere since we didn't have room to grow the pig or the cow.

... so you didn't survive on just 2 acres' worth of food.

Also, 2 acres per 7 people is far more land than actually exists, much
less is available for farming, in urban or even suburban areas.

>> The Great Depression hit after this was underway, so people
>> couldn't just live off the land until the economy improved, as they
>> had during the frequent prior depressions.
>
> those people had their lands taken away from them by the very same
> banks which helped prolong the depression; ...

The banks couldn't have taken away their land back when land was free.
Even if a farmer were stupid and took out a reverse mortgage, which I'm
not sure existed back then, they could simply default, move west and get
new land for free. No problem.

In fact, hordes of people _did_ move west during the 1800s, but they had
no trouble feeding themselves once they established a homestead,
regardless of the state of the economy. Depressions back then only
affected bankers, industrialists and other city folk.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 9:02 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> You're trying to prevent a crime.  The "killing him" part is incidental.
>   I've seen both positions on deadly force in various parts of the US.
> In one case someone was prosecuted for shooting a burglar, in other
> cases you get a pass if you "think" someone "might" harm you.

Our area had a case where the homeowner shot someone in the back while
the trespassor was running away from the house. The homeowner was
prosecuted. Controversial case.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 9:15 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> I tend to disagree with the harmlessness of background checks. Tell
> your doctor you're depressed or the doctor so diagnosis's you and no
> guns for you and that will discourage people from seeing doctors.

> Perhaps not now but eventually, governments like to enroach so and it
> gets guns off the street so what's your complaint?

Another problem with this is that the supposedly "confidential"
database of no gun buyers will end up being used by employers to deny
people jobs, by insurance companies to jack up rates, and mortgage
companies to jack up interest charges.

It bugs me that insurance companies use credit checks as a determinant
of insurance rates (as do employers for hiring).

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 11:33 am, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:

> >Migration off the farm happened because of industrial improvements.
>
> No, migration off the farm happened because you can't subdivide a farm
> into infinite pieces.   Farm families were large, a necessity to make
> ends meet.   Only the eldest would usually be in line to inherit the

> farm, so the remaining offspring had to go somewhere.-

Going way back, farming was very difficult. The net proceeds were
very low after all costs. The work extremely hard and often very
disagreeable. Many people, be they offspring or parents, decided to
go somewhere else in the hopes of finding more fertile land, better
markets, lower costs, whatever, to have an easier time of it. Thus we
had the westward migration throughout the 1800s. Some went all the
way to California, some stopped along the way. (See bios of Truman
and Eisenhower and the families).

Once the industrial revolution hit in a big way after 1900, the
factory jobs simply paid better than farm work did and were, despite
the heat and smoke, better than farm work. During WW I and WW II,
factories needed people badly and wages were very good, so more people
left their farms.

Note that many 'farmers' were just hired hands, not the farm owner,
and they had next to nothing.

Note that many immigrants circa 1900 came to the US for low paid
factory work and crowded housing conditions because their past rural
life was even worse.

In many of the migrations, the parents didn't improve their lives very
much, but felt their destination would offer a better future and
opportunity for their children, and it often did. Cities had public
schools and offered more literacy than rural areas. Plenty of kids
had a chance to move up in the world.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 18-Apr-13 17:28, Rikishi42 wrote:
> On 2013-04-17,
> Mike <mi...@mike.net> wrote:
>> The Founders provided for the right to own and bare arms to
>> maintain a threat over government that if it becomes too
>> oppressive, the populous could revolt with a credible potential of
>> success.
>
> Really?
>
> I allways figured it was just a way of compensating for the lack of
> Law Enforcement in a young, developping country.

The 2nd Amd clearly states that the militia is "necessary to the
security of a free State", rather than the security of individuals.
It's not about a lack of law enforcement.

It does compensate for the lack of an army, but that's not all. The
militia was intended to protect the state not just from external threats
to its existence but also from internal threats to freedom, such as the
govt itself. (Note that a state and a govt are not the same thing.)

The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be
self-evident, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
abolish it, and to institute new Government.... it is their right, it is
their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
their future security." The militia was intended to be the means of
guaranteeing that possibility.

> Same thing with this idea of judgements based on precedence, rather
> than proper definition of laws: they'd not had time yet to properly
> define all the needed laws, so let's have a judge decide how to rule
> on a new kind of case, and then copy his decision for similar cases.

We inherited our legal system from England, which had ~700 years to
develop laws, plus the Colonies themselves had been developing laws for
decades to centuries.

Our Founders didn't need more time to write down laws; they never
intended to write them down at all.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 11:50 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> Federal law only prohibits purchase of guns by people who have been
> _adjudicated_ mentally ill, i.e. committed to a mental institution by a
> judge, and we need a registry of such people similar to the registry of
> convicted felons.  Merely telling your doctor that you're depressed
> would not be enough to get on it.

For now.

But certain other mental health issues require reporting and law
enforcement gets involved to protect public safety. If anything,
citizens are clammoring to expand such reporting mandates.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 12:07 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Not that stupid has just one party affiliation, but we do have one party
> actively  promoting stupid.   Rick  Santorum: "We  will  never have  the
> elite, smart people on our side".

The 'true believers' of both parties regularly parrot urban myths and
b/s. People of the right blame Obama for anything and everything--
such as claiming policy proposals or just talk are in fact enacted law
with negative effects.

People of the left blamed Bush for anything and everything. My
favorite was that they were SURE Bush would declare some war just
before the election so as to justify staying in office in a national
emergency.

I do not care for the social company of 'true believers'. They manage
to bring politics into the most mundane conversations.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 1:24 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be
> self-evident, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes
> destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
> abolish it, and to institute new Government.... it is their right, it is
> their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
> their future security."  The militia was intended to be the means of
> guaranteeing that possibility.

Who gets to decide when the "government becomes destructive of these
ends"?

There are people who passionately believe that providing welfare is
"destructive", and there are people who are equally passionate believe
the failure to provide welfare is "destructive". Who is right?

Another poster talks about opporession. Many in the labor movement
believe capitalists are 'oppressing' them, while many corporate
managers believe that labor power is 'oppressing' them. Who is right?

[Dan Espen]

All of that has the ring of truth, but completely ignores the issue
that we have ONLY ONE political party actually promoting stupidity.

--
Dan Espen

[Dave Garland]

On 4/19/2013 12:24 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be
> self-evident, ...

The Declaration of Independence is a piece of revolutionary
propaganda. The Declaration of Independence has no force of law.
Note that not all of the things they complained about got provided for
in the Constitution, and indeed a few of the King's objectionable
actions are continued to this day by the successor governments.

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
> The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be
> self-evident, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes
> destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
> abolish it, and to institute new Government.... it is their right, it is
> their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for
> their future security." The militia was intended to be the means of
> guaranteeing that possibility.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#20 What Makes weapons control Bizarre?

drafted by jefferson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

various descriptions of the constitutional convention, were things
arranged for jefferson to be out of the country when it was going on.
it wasn't until they didn't get constitution ratified, that they had to
bring jefferson in (& the bill of rights).

--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 12:10, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:15 am, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
>> I tend to disagree with the harmlessness of background checks. Tell
>> your doctor you're depressed or the doctor so diagnosis's you and no
>> guns for you and that will discourage people from seeing doctors.
>> Perhaps not now but eventually, governments like to enroach so and it
>> gets guns off the street so what's your complaint?
>
> Another problem with this is that the supposedly "confidential"
> database of no gun buyers

Such a registry wouldn't need to be "confidential" because it would be
merely a collection of court records that are _already_ public.

> will end up being used by employers to deny people jobs, by
> insurance companies to jack up rates, and mortgage companies to
> jack up interest charges.

Court records _already_ show up on private background checks. I have no
idea if the above parties do what you're claiming on the basis of
involuntary commitments, but there's nothing stopping them from doing so
_today_. They do discriminate against convicted felons, and they don't
need access to a federal registry for that either.

All a federal registry does is find the same public records when the
_govt_ does a background check on gun buyers.

Also, a large fraction of commitments are due to alcohol or drug abuse,
i.e. rehab. That's another class of people who are prohibited from
buying a gun under federal law that today slip through the background
check process unless their abuse has resulted in a felony conviction.

[Dave Garland]

On 4/19/2013 7:44 AM, Peter Flass wrote:
> On 4/18/2013 4:09 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:

>> I agree exactly with this!!! Let the Democrats have their gun
>> background checks... *no* harm in getting the checks. Will it solve
>> the
>> problem or substantially change anything??? No, but folks can "move
>> on"
>> from the gun control issue.
>>
>

> They may not help much unless coupled with some method of getting the
> dangerously mentally ill off the streets.

I believe the original idea was to deinstitutionalize them and provide
mental health services outside the institutions. Surprisingly enough,
then politicians appeared who then viewed those mental health services
as places to make budget cuts.

Plus, it's very difficult to determine with accuracy just which of
those mentally ill is "dangerously" so. For each mistake you make,
you either leave a dangerous one on the street, or unconstitutionally
imprison somebody who's not "normal" but not dangerous to others,
either. That was a favorite game the USSR government played, to
determine (no doubt with the nodding agreement of "reputable" doctors)
that its opponents were dangerously nuts.

We should also go after
> violence on TV and especially video games. Nothing is going to be a
> complete solution, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Well, TV and video games are pretend violence, and even most of the
nut cases understand that. First, we should go after perpetrators of
real violence, such as politicians who attack foreign countries with
the military, who kill people with drones, etc.

[Scott Lurndal]

Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>On 19-Apr-13 05:20, sdrat wrote:
>> "Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
>> news:kkqvc0$ab7$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 18-Apr-13 23:36, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>>> In <kkprva$plg$1...@dont-email.me>, on 04/18/2013 at 05:29 PM,
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> said:
>>>>> While it varies slightly between states, the general rule is
>>>>> that "deadly force" is only justified to stop murder, rape or
>>>>> suicide.
>>>>
>>>> Suicide? What's the logic in killing someone to prevent him from
>>>> killing himself?
>>>
>>> I suspect the idea is that if someone is already going to kill
>>> himself, there is no reason to restrict the force used to try to
>>> stop him; if you accidentally kill him, that's no worse than doing
>>> nothing at all.
>>
>> I just don't buy your claim that anywhere allows the use of deadly
>> force to stop a suicide.
>
>From the Texas Penal Code:

Noted. This does not, of course, apply nationwide.

>"Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
>...
>(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against
>another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or
>deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an
>emergency."
>
>Incidentally, it is not unusual to see such scenarios on TV: the perp

Proof by television! Like anything on TV bears any relationship to reality.

>
>These examples are from Texas because that's what I can cite off the top
>of my head, but you will find something similar in every US state, with
>minor differences in the details and wording.

Major differences.

[Scott Lurndal]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com writes:

>On Apr 19, 8:44=A0am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> They may not help much unless coupled with some method of getting the

>> dangerously mentally ill off the streets. =A0We should also go after
>> violence on TV and especially video games. =A0Nothing is going to be a

>> complete solution, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
>
>As mentioned, it is very difficult to define who is 'dangerously
>mentally ill' until after they actually do something.
>

Paranoia is a mental illness.

Unreasonable fear that some soi disant US Government is going to take all
weapons away (something that no politician has ever proposed) is paranoia.

Many right-wing politicians (and wayne la pierre) parrot that aforementioned
unreasonable fear. Therefore many right wing politicians suffer from paranoia,
which is a mental illness.

Therefore, Wayne La Pierre should not be allowed to possess or use a weapon.

QED :-)

[sdrat]

"Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kkrdl3$474$3...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/18/2013 4:09 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:

>> "Walter Banks" <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote in message
>> news:51704AC6...@bytecraft.com...
>>>
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>
>>>> My mother told me about how she took her (note: not her father's) rifle
>>>> to kindergarten one day for Show and Tell. She pointed out that her
>>>> father made her leave the firing pin at home to prevent any accidents.
>>>> And that was in NYS!
>>>
>>> I attended a country school in the 50's that we rode horseback to.
>>> It was common for students the have a saddle scabbard with
>>> a rifle. No one thought anything of guns at school.
>>>
>>> Guns now are more about personal culture than laws governing their
>>> use. Background checks are probably a good idea but they are not
>>> likely to change much.

>>
>> I agree exactly with this!!! Let the Democrats have their gun
>> background checks... *no* harm in getting the checks. Will it solve the
>> problem or substantially change anything??? No, but folks can "move on"
>> from the gun control issue.
>>
>

> They may not help much unless coupled with some method of getting the

> dangerously mentally ill off the streets. We should also go after

> violence on TV and especially video games.

No evidence that the cowboy movies with all that violence had
any effect on people's behaviour with that sort of spree shooting.

Nothing is going to be a
> complete solution, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

But you do need evidence that something is actually 'good'

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 12:07, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 9:02 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>> You're trying to prevent a crime. The "killing him" part is

>> incidental.. I've seen both positions on deadly force in various

>> parts of the US. In one case someone was prosecuted for shooting a
>> burglar, in other cases you get a pass if you "think" someone
>> "might" harm you.
>
> Our area had a case where the homeowner shot someone in the back
> while the trespassor was running away from the house. The homeowner
> was prosecuted. Controversial case.

Indeed, and such controversies show how public opinion can shape the
results regardless of the law. How did that case turn out?

A friend of a friend shot two armed intruders in his house, which was
unquestionably legal. He shot another in the back outside plus the
unarmed getaway driver, which were both unquestionably _illegal_. The
cops and prosecutor went through the motions, but the grand jury refused
to indict him for _any_ of the shootings.

It's a recurring joke that "he needed killin'" is a valid defense in
Texas; it's not according to the law, but juries trump laws.

[Dave Garland]

On 4/19/2013 12:30 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 12:07 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Not that stupid has just one party affiliation, but we do have one party
>> actively promoting stupid. Rick Santorum: "We will never have the
>> elite, smart people on our side".
>
> The 'true believers' of both parties regularly parrot urban myths and
> b/s. People of the right blame Obama for anything and everything--
> such as claiming policy proposals or just talk are in fact enacted law
> with negative effects.
>
> People of the left blamed Bush for anything and everything. My
> favorite was that they were SURE Bush would declare some war just
> before the election so as to justify staying in office in a national
> emergency.

You're exaggerating. Unless by "People of the left" you mean "a few
paranoid conspiracy types on the left". Yeah, there were a few who
thought something like that, just like there were a few right-=wing
nut cases who thought Obama would do something like that to avoid his
certain defeat by Romney, but the vast majority of those of us on the
left didn't.

[Scott Lurndal]

The problem is that both Nixon and Reagan actually _did_ something
like this to get elected.

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
> Stephen Sprunk wrote

>> jmfbahciv wrote
>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote

>>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote
>>>>> sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote

>>>>> Conversatives have long felt that govt shouldn't provide
>>>>> welfare, that any almost person is capable of providing
>>>>> for themselves, and cite the early days. But back then most
>>>>> people lived on a farm and could grow their own food and
>>>>> get by. Today lots of people have no land at all and others
>>>>> very limited amounts, so growing food isn't practical.

>>>> Things were different when farmland was free for the asking.
>>>> Once all the (decent) farmland was "taken" and the banks (and land
>>>> speculators) got involved, we recreated the same economic problems
>>>> that caused most of our ancestors to flee Europe in the first place.

>>> Take a look at the waste of [what middle-classers call] lawns. It's
>>> a monoculture, requires lots of labor and resources and creates
>>> poisoning with over-fertilizing and weed killer. There is plenty of
>>> land for gardens, even in NYC. People aren't willing to do the work.

>> Urban (and suburban) gardens are a hobby, not a practical food source;
>> there is nowhere near enough land to feed all the people there. Nor
>> could all those people _afford_ to buy rural farmland.

> Sounds like you didn't grow up poor, where poor means no cash flow.
> My folks fed 5 kids on 2 acres of garden. Dad hunted and we all

> fished. Other meat was butchering chickens, a pig, or a cow bought

> from elsewhere since we didn't have room to grow the pig or the cow.

>> The migration from farms to cities started when all the (decent)
>> farmland was "taken" and the banks (and land speculators) got involved,
>> driving up the price of land. At that point, the "American dream" of
>> independence evaporated for most of the population.

> Migration off the farm happened because of industrial improvements.

Yes, but back on the farm, not in the way you are suggesting.

> Ford paid his workers well. WWII was the crux.

There was a hell of a lot of migration off the farm before WW2.

> Washington D.C. got huge and manufacturing took off.

Manufacturing had taken off LONG before that.

Its interesting to go to the vintage machinery field days
and see how much of that stuff came from america, and
was made LONG before WW2.

> The educational system started to address
> turning the minset from farming to middle class.

I don’t believe it was education that did that in a casual sense.

The best of the farmers always were middle and upper class
even in america and they always were into education. That
did end up gradual permeating down to the dregs of the
farmers, presumably at least partly because of compulsory
school attendance that the middle class forced on them etc.

> I now have the materials my mother kept when she went to an
> extension session put on by Mich. State. It tuaght the women how to work
> without help and the men to manage farming which wasn't subsistence.

Sure, but the dregs of farming certainly was subsistence.

> I don't have the materials for the male side just my mother's
> resentment that she wasn't allowed to go to those classes.

>> The Great Depression hit after this was underway, so people couldn't

>> just live off the land until the economy improved, as they had during
>> the frequent prior depressions. I don't like welfare either, but I have
>> come to understand that FDR did what he felt was necessary to
>> prevent a Communist revolution,

I don’t believe that was the driver for FDR.

>> which was a real concern when millions of (armed)
>> people were literally starving to death in the streets.

That last just plain didn’t happen in america. It was always
well enough organised to ensure that didn’t happen.

> those people had their lands taken away from them by the
> very same banks which helped prolong the depression;

> decisions were made with the bias of the coast banks.

That’s just plain wrong with the 'coast banks'

Banks were in fact VERY local and doing that sort of stuff.

> The ones who did business with the bread basket

It wasn’t the bread basket in Dust Bowl times.

> were voted down whenever the farming interest
> conflicted with the city-banks' interests.

Have fun spelling out how that is even possible vote wise.

> There is a two-volume history which you may be interested in:
> _The Evolution of U.S. Finance_; Jane W. D'Arista; M.E. Sharpe; 1994.

[Rod Speed]

jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote
>>> Scott Lurndal wrote
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote
>>>>> Dan Espen wrote

>>>>>> The founders are fine and all, but I don't
>>>>>> consider their opinions sacred anyway.

>>>>> When interpreting a law, SCOTUS considers the intent of the people
>>>>> who passed it, not just the literal text. That seems reasonable.

>>>> Actually, the conservative justices may consider the "intent of the
>>>> founders",
>>>> but the liberal justices live in the modern world and consider much
>>>> more widely.

>>> No. Those who are "modern" are thinking in city-living terms and
>>> do not understand living conditions in areas which aren't crowded.

>>> All the rhetoric provided by Obama about the proposed
>>> gun laws would not have prevented Conn.'s mess.

>> Nothing provided by anyone else would either.

>> There is just one way to prevent something like that, no guns
>> at all, and that’s unconstitutional and politically impossible too.

> There is a second, more practical way

Nope.

> but nobody will do that either.

>>> There exists at least one parent, whose kid was killed
>>> there, who doesn't agree with more restrictions.

>> One fool is completely irrelevant.

> He's the only one who has said anything which is sensible.

Not very surprising that that’s uncommon in that situation.

> Everyone else wants a fairy tale land of the Disney variety;
> Disney butchers the stories of the real fairy tales.

[Rod Speed]

"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004DAB...@ac8138b3.ipt.aol.com...
> greymausg wrote:
>> On 2013-04-17, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com <hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 10:39 am, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Last month I read the Scientific American article on the incestuous
>>>> relationship between the FDA and the drug industry. I don't need any
>>>> education on the process.
>>>
>>> What is troubling is that drugs that aren't very effective still get
>>> approved.
>>>
>>> Also, the ads by big pharma are disturbing--virtually promising
>>> miracles which is b/s. It's disgusting they're allowed to grossly
>>> exaggerate their claims.a
>>
>>
>> Aspirin, according to what I read, would never be approved if `invented'
>> nowadays.

> Under FDA rules, right.

Its bullshit, actually.

>> I spent a while the other day listening to the dangers of
>> paracet* from a medical person ("He stepped out of the
>> shop, swallowed a couple, crumbled and died")

> Paracet?

> I know Percaset (sp?) is dangerous. Jim used
> one and thought he was going to die.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 12:55, Dave Garland wrote:
> On 4/19/2013 12:24 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be
>> self-evident, ...
>
> The Declaration of Independence is a piece of revolutionary
> propaganda. The Declaration of Independence has no force of law.

By itself, no. Like the Federalist Papers, though, it was written by
many of the same people as the Constitution and Bill of Rights, so it is
relevant as an indicator of their _intent_. It is the foundation upon
which our laws were laid.

> Note that not all of the things they complained about got provided
> for in the Constitution, and indeed a few of the King's objectionable
> actions are continued to this day by the successor governments.

That our govt is imperfect (as all are) is not an indictment of the
ideals that gave rise to it.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 1:49 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:

> > I do not care for the social company of 'true believers'.  They manage
> > to bring politics into the most mundane conversations.
>
> All of that has the ring of truth, but completely ignores the issue
> that we have ONLY ONE political party actually promoting stupidity.

Right now I'm mad at the Republicans, who insist on stating a bogus
version of US history, and want to turn the clock back to days of
poverty and exploitation.

They hate FDR and New Deal, but if it wasn't for him, the country
would no longer exist as happened elsewhere.

[sdrat]

"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message

news:kkrs5n$k3b$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 19-Apr-13 05:20, sdrat wrote:
>> "Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message
>> news:kkqvc0$ab7$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 18-Apr-13 23:36, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>>> In <kkprva$plg$1...@dont-email.me>, on 04/18/2013 at 05:29 PM,
>>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> said:
>>>>> While it varies slightly between states, the general rule is
>>>>> that "deadly force" is only justified to stop murder, rape or
>>>>> suicide.
>>>>
>>>> Suicide? What's the logic in killing someone to prevent him from
>>>> killing himself?
>>>
>>> I suspect the idea is that if someone is already going to kill
>>> himself, there is no reason to restrict the force used to try to
>>> stop him; if you accidentally kill him, that's no worse than doing
>>> nothing at all.
>>
>> I just don't buy your claim that anywhere allows the use of deadly
>> force to stop a suicide.
>
> From the Texas Penal Code:

> "Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
> ...
> (b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against
> another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or
> deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an
> emergency."

That is not talking about suicide.

It isn't even possible to preserve a suicider's life using
deadly force except with your silly definition of deadly
force which includes shooting them anywhere.

> Incidentally, it is not unusual to see such scenarios on TV: the perp
> goes to shoot himself, and the cops shoot him in the arm (or shoulder)
> to stop him--and then arrest him.

Sure, but that isn't deadly force, by definition its non lethal force
when they deliberately shoot him in the arm or shoulder to stop him.

> In contrast, if the same perp points his gun at the cops, they shoot to
> kill,

And that is deadly force because they intend to kill him.

> which falls under a completely different justification:

> "Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is
> justified in using deadly force against another:
> ...
> (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly
> force is immediately necessary:
> ...
> (B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
> kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery,
> or aggravated robbery."

>>> For instance, imagine shooting someone (a use of "deadly force") in
>>> the arm to stop him from shooting himself in the head.
>>
>> That’s not deadly force.
>
> "Sec. 9.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
> ...
> (3) "Deadly force" means force that is intended or known by the actor
> to cause, or in the manner of its use or intended use is capable of
> causing, death or serious bodily injury."

That’s a silly definition on that last.

> Shooting someone can clearly cause "death or serious bodily injury",

Yes, but its silly to call serious bodily injury deadly.

Using that silly line, even just physically restraining them
can be called deadly force just because not doing it properly
can kill someone on the worst situation. That’s not what most
mean by the use of the term deadly force.

Its just as true of say handcuffs which can be
deadly if say the individual handcuffed is
having an asthma attack and dies of that
because they cant breath properly when restrained.

> regardless of where you intend to hit them,
> so it always qualifies as deadly force.

Only with that silly wording of the definition.

> These examples are from Texas because that's what I can cite off the top
> of my head, but you will find something similar in every US state, with
> minor differences in the details and wording.

The difference are not minor at all with the serious bodily injury part.

[sdrat]

"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message

news:kkrtao$t9c$1...@dont-email.me...

That last is just plain wrong with those who had to sell what they produced.

[sdrat]

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
news:8cd6b915-802d-4202...@y14g2000vbk.googlegroups.com...

We had one too, and the jury refused to convict.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 2:12 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:


> Such a registry wouldn't need to be "confidential" because it would be
> merely a collection of court records that are _already_ public.

A great many court records are not computerized at all. Others are
accessible only in person at the court house, not remotely.

Yes, if you really want to get the dirt on someone you can access
'public records', but it takes time and skill to do so.

On the other hand, creating another database, especially one purposely
open to the public and easily accessible, creates privacy issues.

Society has failed to address the impact of computerization and the
Internet on privacy. As said, there were always public records, but
had to be accessed in person. Today computers and the Internet allows
(1) access to information remotely, and (2) easy sorting, searching,
and cataloging of information.

The adverse impacts of the loss of privacy per above are substantial.

Defenders of easy access to public records often have a selfish
motive, such as journalists or security personnel. They usually make
claims that privacy is protected, which we know damn well is not true.

In the recent Boston incident, they reported that people would look at
Facebook images and take action on their own against 'suspects'.
Premature releases from the news media didn't help either.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 2:35 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:

> On 19-Apr-13 12:07, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:


> > Our area had a case where the homeowner shot someone in the back
> > while the trespassor was running away from the house.  The homeowner
> > was prosecuted.  Controversial case.
>
> Indeed, and such controversies show how public opinion can shape the
> results regardless of the law.  How did that case turn out?

IIRC, after being charged he copped a plea for a relatively minor
charge.

The prosecutors really wanted to nail the homeowner because they
emphasized the circumstances were clear that the homeowner was not in
danger (perp running away from the house). A lot of the public saw it
otherwise. I don't think it's an easy call to make.

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 12:45, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 1:24 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be
>> self-evident, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes
>> destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
>> or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.... it is their
>> right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
>> provide new Guards for their future security." The militia was
>> intended to be the means of guaranteeing that possibility.
>
> Who gets to decide when the "government becomes destructive of these
> ends"?

According to the DoI, the "People" do.

In fact, it could be said that we "alter" our govt every time there is
an election. If our govt decided to stop holding elections, you can bet
that people would rise up to "abolish" it. That would be an empty
threat if the citizenry weren't armed. As Mao said, power grows from
the barrel of a gun--but in this country, the guns are pointed _toward_
the govt. That is what safeguards our democracy.

> There are people who passionately believe that providing welfare is
> "destructive", and there are people who are equally passionate
> believe the failure to provide welfare is "destructive". Who is
> right?
>
> Another poster talks about opporession. Many in the labor movement
> believe capitalists are 'oppressing' them, while many corporate
> managers believe that labor power is 'oppressing' them. Who is
> right?

Both are difficult questions, and it's possible for either or both sides
to be right depending on how you frame the question.

The "ends" mentioned above are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness", but those often conflict with each other. Is it an
injustice to deny one person life in order secure another's liberty or
vice versa? How does one balance two persons' liberties? Nearly all
modern controversies can be reduced to such conflict--and the relative
priority placed on various manifestations of these ideals.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 2:35 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:

> You're exaggerating.  Unless by "People of the left" you mean "a few
> paranoid conspiracy types on the left".  Yeah, there were a few who
> thought something like that, just like there were a few right-=wing
> nut cases who thought Obama would do something like that to avoid his
> certain defeat by Romney, but the vast majority of those of us on the
> left didn't.

Not exaggerating. There were quite a few people--on both sides--who
truly believe crazy stuff. They constantly throw out their little
digs in everyday conversation.

[sdrat]

"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message

news:kks66q$536$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 19-Apr-13 12:45, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 1:24 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> The Declaration of Independence says "We hold these truths to be
>>> self-evident, ... That whenever any Form of Government becomes
>>> destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter
>>> or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.... it is their
>>> right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to
>>> provide new Guards for their future security." The militia was
>>> intended to be the means of guaranteeing that possibility.
>>
>> Who gets to decide when the "government becomes destructive of these
>> ends"?
>
> According to the DoI, the "People" do.
>
> In fact, it could be said that we "alter" our govt every time there is
> an election. If our govt decided to stop holding elections, you can bet
> that people would rise up to "abolish" it. That would be an empty
> threat if the citizenry weren't armed. As Mao said, power grows from
> the barrel of a gun--but in this country, the guns are pointed _toward_
> the govt.

No.

> That is what safeguards our democracy.

No.

[Charles Richmond]

"Stan Barr" <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:slrnkn1qv4...@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de...
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:24:03 -0500, Charles Richmond
> <nume...@aquaporin4.com> wrote:
>> "Stan Barr" <pla...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
>> news:slrnkmv7vu...@ID-309335.user.uni-berlin.de...
>>> On Wed, 17 Apr 2013 19:58:14 -0400, Peter Flass
>>> <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> When was the last time anyone ordered a bayonet charge?
>>>
>>> Falklands, Afghanistan. There's a reason the British Army still
>>> issue them...they're very effective. To quote a character in an old
>>> British TV series "They don't like it up 'em."
>>>
>>
>> The British used the Gurkhas in the Falklands. Their reputation preceded
>> them. I read that when the Argentinians saw the Gurkhas charging, they
>> turned tail and ran!!! Nasty little devils, those Gurkhas!!!
>
> Very nice friendly guys, well liked by everyone (on their side!).
>

I think the Jem'Haddar on the US TV show "Star Trek: Deep Space Nine" were
patterned after the Gurkas in part. The Jem'Haddar were a race of beings
bred for being soldiers, with their greatest honor being do die in combat.
An "individual" of the Jem'Haddar took six months to reach maturity, and the
adults only lived about three earth years. Their loyalty to their masters
and their willingness to die in combat seemed their treasured ideals. Oh
yes, one other thing: a Jem'Haddar could make himself invisible at will.

--

numerist at aquaporin4 dot com

[Charles Richmond]

"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message

news:kkpqcd$for$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 18-Apr-13 13:59, Peter Flass wrote:
>> On 4/18/2013 8:29 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <166efacb-7878-47ed...@s9g2000vba.googlegroups.com>,
>>> hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>> On Apr 17, 6:23Â pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>>>> If your gun is locked up, as some states require, an intruder
>>>>> could easily reach and kill you before you can arm yourself. Â
>>>>> Hint: don't expect very high compliance with such laws.
>>>>
>>>> But do expect your kids will get access to your unlocked guns
>>>> and shoot themselves with them.
>>>
>>> That usually doesn't happen.
>>
>> Admittedly these incidents make the news, but it seems like I hear
>> about one every few weeks. We had a kid killed here last year.
>
> According to the CDC, there were 851 accidental shootings in 2011.
> That's a tragedy, sure, but pales in comparison to the 19,766 suicides
> and 11,101 homicides.
>

With 11,101 homicides and 19,766 suicides, it seems the killer one should
fear the most... is oneself!!!

[Dan Espen]

I know a few Republicans that refuse to go along with the current
party. Even Pete F. recently posted about how he's disaffected with the
current antics of the party.

Unfortunately, based on the last election, there is still a pretty large
group of people that don't care or don't see it.

Think of it, Trump was a hot candidate. A birther.
Then we had Herman Cain.
He was taking the party by storm with his 9-9-9 nonsense.
Molesting a bunch of women didn't matter. It was only his massive
ignorance of current events in Libya that did him in.

There should always be an opposition, just to keep things honest,
but when you go to stupid just to be opposed, you've gone too far.

--
Dan Espen

[Walter Banks]

Talk radio didn't help focus on rational facts.

w..

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 12:25, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 11:50 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Federal law only prohibits purchase of guns by people who have
>> been _adjudicated_ mentally ill, i.e. committed to a mental
>> institution by a judge, and we need a registry of such people
>> similar to the registry of convicted felons. Merely telling your
>> doctor that you're depressed would not be enough to get on it.
>
> For now.
>
> But certain other mental health issues require reporting and law
> enforcement gets involved to protect public safety. If anything,
> citizens are clammoring to expand such reporting mandates.

Irrelevant. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) prohibits selling a firearm to
someone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
committed to any mental institution". That hasn't changed from the
original Gun Control Act of 1968. Aside from the addition of aliens on
non-immigrant visas to the list of prohibited persons, that entire
section is unchanged! Pretty much everyone on both sides agrees with
the restrictions in theory; the only controversy is enforcement.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <20130419090730.fd9d...@eircom.net>, on 04/19/2013
at 09:07 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> said:

>o it's not my position it's my deduction

C 'deduction" 'fantasy'

>from your position where you have no problem killing the burglar
>to stop them. From this I deduce that you believe a burglar
>deserves to die.

That may be what the voices in your head tell you, but it has not
logical connection with what I wrote.

>The part where it's OK to kill the burglar unless you happen to have
>subdued him. Why is that OK if the crime does not justify death ?

You don't believe in a right of self defense? You are unable to
distinguish between what is justified in order to stop a crime and
what is justified in order to punish it?

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Walter Bushell]

In article <532.892T9...@kltpzyxm.invalid>,
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid> wrote:

> In article <kkpqcd$for$1...@dont-email.me>, ste...@sprunk.org

> (Stephen Sprunk) writes:
>
> > According to the CDC, there were 851 accidental shootings in 2011.
> > That's a tragedy, sure, but pales in comparison to the 19,766 suicides
> > and 11,101 homicides.
>

> And 32,367 traffic fatalities.

just about 2^15 a number very familiar to 709(x) computer programmers.

--
Gambling with Other People's Money is the meth of the fiscal industry.
me -- in the spirit of Karl and Groucho Marx

[Peter Flass]

On 4/19/2013 1:04 PM, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:

> On Apr 19, 8:44 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> They may not help much unless coupled with some method of getting the
>> dangerously mentally ill off the streets. We should also go after

>> violence on TV and especially video games. Nothing is going to be a

>> complete solution, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
>

> As mentioned, it is very difficult to define who is 'dangerously
> mentally ill' until after they actually do something.
>

> One of the problems with this issue is creating a class of 'thought
> crime'--in that just thinking about something bad becomes cause for
> lockup. Indeed, it could make matters worse, as troubled people who
> want help refuse to seek it due to fear they'll be imprisoned if they
> share their thoughts with a counselor. It's like that now with some
> heinous crimes.

That's just a straw man. The problems of such people are often obvious
to pretty much anyone who comes in contact with them. Anyhow, you're
not punishing them for something they haven't yet done, yuou're simply
taking action to prevent them from doing it, which might include
counseling, medication or institutionalization.


--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

On 4/19/2013 2:22 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> writes:
>> On 19-Apr-13 05:20, sdrat wrote:

>>> "Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message

>>> news:kkqvc0$ab7$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 18-Apr-13 23:36, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
>>>>> In <kkprva$plg$1...@dont-email.me>, on 04/18/2013 at 05:29 PM,
>>>>> Stephen Sprunk <ste...@sprunk.org> said:
>>>>>> While it varies slightly between states, the general rule is
>>>>>> that "deadly force" is only justified to stop murder, rape or
>>>>>> suicide.
>>>>>
>>>>> Suicide? What's the logic in killing someone to prevent him from
>>>>> killing himself?
>>>>
>>>> I suspect the idea is that if someone is already going to kill
>>>> himself, there is no reason to restrict the force used to try to
>>>> stop him; if you accidentally kill him, that's no worse than doing
>>>> nothing at all.
>>>
>>> I just don't buy your claim that anywhere allows the use of deadly
>>> force to stop a suicide.
>>
>>From the Texas Penal Code:
>

> Noted. This does not, of course, apply nationwide.

>
>> "Sec. 9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH.
>> ...
>> (b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against
>> another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or
>> deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an
>> emergency."
>>

>> Incidentally, it is not unusual to see such scenarios on TV: the perp
>

> Proof by television! Like anything on TV bears any relationship to reality.

I was reading an interesting discussion of the "history" depicted by
medieval saints' lives. The author's conclusion was that anything in
the account may or may not be "true," but that it had to be plausible so
that people reading the account would believe it might have been true.
Same with TV cop shows - obviously they're highly dramatized fiction,
but they wouldn't work if people didn't think believe the events were
possible.


--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

On 4/19/2013 2:27 PM, sdrat wrote:
>
>
> "Peter Flass" <Peter...@Yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:kkrdl3$474$3...@dont-email.me...
>> On 4/18/2013 4:09 PM, Charles Richmond wrote:
>>> "Walter Banks" <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:51704AC6...@bytecraft.com...
>>>>
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My mother told me about how she took her (note: not her father's)
>>>>> rifle
>>>>> to kindergarten one day for Show and Tell. She pointed out that her
>>>>> father made her leave the firing pin at home to prevent any accidents.
>>>>> And that was in NYS!
>>>>
>>>> I attended a country school in the 50's that we rode horseback to.
>>>> It was common for students the have a saddle scabbard with
>>>> a rifle. No one thought anything of guns at school.
>>>>
>>>> Guns now are more about personal culture than laws governing their
>>>> use. Background checks are probably a good idea but they are not
>>>> likely to change much.
>>>
>>> I agree exactly with this!!! Let the Democrats have their gun
>>> background checks... *no* harm in getting the checks. Will it solve the
>>> problem or substantially change anything??? No, but folks can "move on"
>>> from the gun control issue.

>>>
>>
>> They may not help much unless coupled with some method of getting the
>> dangerously mentally ill off the streets. We should also go after
>> violence on TV and especially video games.
>

> No evidence that the cowboy movies with all that violence had
> any effect on people's behaviour with that sort of spree shooting.

>
> Nothing is going to be a
>> complete solution, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
>

> But you do need evidence that something is actually 'good'

Well, I think having fewer murders would be generally agreed to be
"good." How we can achieve that is the question.

--
Pete

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kks1da$sns$1...@dont-email.me>,
Dave Garland <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote:

>
> I believe the original idea was to deinstitutionalize them and provide
> mental health services outside the institutions. Surprisingly enough,
> then politicians appeared who then viewed those mental health services
> as places to make budget cuts.

That and the movement of shrinks etcetera into clinics for the lower
and middle middle class. Hey, their was money for treatment and these
people could benefit from treatment, and there was money and they were
easier to deal with. So why treat the serious mental cases?

[Peter Flass]

That last sentence sounds like a Gurka. Weren't they famous for
infiltrating enemy lines and making good use of their knives?


--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

On 4/19/2013 7:16 PM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> On 19-Apr-13 12:25, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Apr 19, 11:50 am, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>>> Federal law only prohibits purchase of guns by people who have
>>> been _adjudicated_ mentally ill, i.e. committed to a mental
>>> institution by a judge, and we need a registry of such people
>>> similar to the registry of convicted felons. Merely telling your
>>> doctor that you're depressed would not be enough to get on it.
>>
>> For now.
>>
>> But certain other mental health issues require reporting and law
>> enforcement gets involved to protect public safety. If anything,
>> citizens are clammoring to expand such reporting mandates.
>
> Irrelevant. 18 U.S.C. § 922(d)(4) prohibits selling a firearm to
> someone who "has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been
> committed to any mental institution". That hasn't changed from the
> original Gun Control Act of 1968. Aside from the addition of aliens on
> non-immigrant visas to the list of prohibited persons, that entire
> section is unchanged! Pretty much everyone on both sides agrees with
> the restrictions in theory; the only controversy is enforcement.
>

Yes, both sides. The right wing views it as a restriction of their
right to own a gun, and the left wing views it as a restriction of the
personal freedom of the "mentally ill." (I had another term in mind, but
thought the better of it)


--
Pete

[Dave Garland]

On 4/19/2013 6:38 PM, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz wrote:
> In <20130419090730.fd9d...@eircom.net>, on 04/19/2013
> at 09:07 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> said:
>
>> o it's not my position it's my deduction
>
> C 'deduction" 'fantasy'
>
>>from your position where you have no problem killing the burglar
>> to stop them. From this I deduce that you believe a burglar
>> deserves to die.
>
> That may be what the voices in your head tell you, but it has not
> logical connection with what I wrote.
>
>> The part where it's OK to kill the burglar unless you happen to have
>> subdued him. Why is that OK if the crime does not justify death ?
>
> You don't believe in a right of self defense? You are unable to
> distinguish between what is justified in order to stop a crime and
> what is justified in order to punish it?
>

The issue is one of proportionality. Burglary does not justify
execution either as a legal penalty or as a preventative, any more
than illegal parking does.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 4:43 pm, Dan Espen <des...@verizon.net> wrote:

> There should always be an opposition, just to keep things honest,
> but when you go to stupid just to be opposed, you've gone too far.

When you read about political conventions of the past, you'll be
shocked at the stupid things said and done, and some whacko candidates
offered up for office. Those un-air-conditioned halls got up to 100°,
but they would still drone on all night long.

Wendel Wilkie was a nice fellow, and intelligent, but in no way
qualified to be president. Yet through a quirk in the system, he got
nominated in 1940.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 5:29 pm, Walter Banks <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote:

> > Not exaggerating.  There were quite a few people--on both sides--who
> > truly believe crazy stuff.  They constantly throw out their little
> > digs in everyday conversation.
>
> Talk radio didn't help focus on rational facts.

True.

But the Internet and sound bites don't help either--people see a quick
headline that is inaccurate and out of context, but accept it as
fact. It's relatively harmless if it's celebrity news. But a lot of
it reinforces B/S notions people carry around when the truth is not so
simple.

News articles in the NYT or WSJ go into some depth to explain things,
but few read them. Traditional broadsheet newspapers, which have a
lot of information, are dying.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 7:48 pm, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:

> > And 32,367 traffic fatalities.
>
> just about 2^15 a number very familiar to 709(x) computer programmers.

[too lazy to look it up] but isn't that the limit of BASIC single
precision integers, and maybe Fortran integers, too?

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 8:24 pm, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:

> On 4/19/2013 1:04 PM, hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>
> > As mentioned, it is very difficult to define who is 'dangerously
> > mentally ill' until after they actually do something.
>
> > One of the problems with this issue is creating a class of 'thought
> > crime'--in that just thinking about something bad becomes cause for
> > lockup.  Indeed, it could make matters worse, as troubled people who
> > want help refuse to seek it due to fear they'll be imprisoned if they
> > share their thoughts with a counselor.  It's like that now with some
> > heinous crimes.
>
> That's just a straw man.  The problems of such people are often obvious
> to pretty much anyone who comes in contact with them.  Anyhow, you're
> not punishing them for something they haven't yet done, yuou're simply
> taking action to prevent them from doing it, which might include
> counseling, medication or institutionalization.

Institutionalization is effectively punishment, despite claims to the
contrary. One is locked up behind bars just as a prison inmate,
perhaps with even more restrictions. The state of being locked up
itself is unnatural and contributes to mental illness

Forced medication is not necessarily pleasant. Some medications have
very nasty side effects.

Under the present legal system, lawyers recommend to clients not to
participate in counseling since there is no Fifth Amendment right--
what is said definitely will be used against you.

As to problems being "obvious", it's one thing to identify a person as
being 'troubled', but quite another to identify them as dangerous.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 19, 10:35 pm, Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:

> The issue is one of proportionality.  Burglary does not justify
> execution either as a legal penalty or as a preventative, any more

> than illegal parking does.-

People have been killed over parking spaces. Something happens to a
person when he gets behind the wheel of a car.

Years ago our drivers' ed teacher warned us that a key to safe driving
was attitude. He was so right.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

Thank you for that very clear phrasing.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 19:38:30 -0400
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <20130419090730.fd9d...@eircom.net>, on 04/19/2013
> at 09:07 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> said:
>
> >o it's not my position it's my deduction
>
> C 'deduction" 'fantasy'
>
> >from your position where you have no problem killing the burglar
> >to stop them. From this I deduce that you believe a burglar
> >deserves to die.
>
> That may be what the voices in your head tell you, but it has not
> logical connection with what I wrote.
>
> >The part where it's OK to kill the burglar unless you happen to have
> >subdued him. Why is that OK if the crime does not justify death ?
>
> You don't believe in a right of self defense? You are unable to

Certainly - and if someone is trying to kill or injure then it is
appropriate to use force to stop them, but preferably they should be
restrained with less force than they intended to apply.

> distinguish between what is justified in order to stop a crime and
> what is justified in order to punish it?

Preventing the crime justifies the minimum damage required to
achieve the effect - for example locking someone up for three years is not
an acceptable method of preventing a burglary but it may be an acceptable
punishment. Killing them is not IMHO acceptable as either punishment or
preventative.

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:48:19 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
<ste...@eircom.net> wrote:

[snip]

> Apart from the suicide part that makes sense - what's the point in
>killing someone to stop them committig suicide ?

What if the consequences of the suicider's choice of suicide
method might affect others?

[snip]

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 21:40:41 -0700
Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> wrote:

> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013 05:48:19 +0100, Ahem A Rivet's Shot
> <ste...@eircom.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Apart from the suicide part that makes sense - what's the point
> > in
> >killing someone to stop them committig suicide ?
>
> What if the consequences of the suicider's choice of suicide
> method might affect others?

Then preventing the suicide is a (possible) side effect of
preventing the consequences which might require killing the person
attempting suicide.

[Peter Flass]

Better stay out of Texas and Florida then ;-)

--
Pete

[Peter Flass]

I'm finally learning that, it's only taken 40 years.

--
Pete

[jmfbahciv]

Scott Lurndal wrote:
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> On 18-Apr-13 09:27, jmfbahciv wrote:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> On 17-Apr-13 12:02, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Apr 17, 11:53 am, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>> Conversatives have long felt that govt shouldn't provide
>>>>>> welfare, that any almost person is capable of providing for
>>>>>> themselves, and cite the early days. But back then most people
>>>>>> lived on a farm and could grow their own food and get by. Today
>>>>>> lots of people have no land at all and others very limited
>>>>>> amounts, so growing food isn't practical.
>>>>>
>>>>> Things were different when farmland was free for the asking. Once
>>>>> all the (decent) farmland was "taken" and the banks (and land
>>>>> speculators) got involved, we recreated the same economic problems
>>>>> that caused most of our ancestors to flee Europe in the first
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> Take a look at the waste of [what middle-classers call] lawns. It's
>>>> a monoculture, requires lots of labor and resources and creates
>>>> poisoning with over-fertilizing and weed killer. There is plenty of
>>>> land for gardens, even in NYC. People aren't willing to do the
>>>> work.
>>>
>>> Urban (and suburban) gardens are a hobby, not a practical food source;
>>> there is nowhere near enough land to feed all the people there. Nor
>>> could all those people _afford_ to buy rural farmland.
>>
>>Sounds like you didn't grow up poor, where poor means no cash flow.
>
> Poor means poor.
>
>>My folks fed 5 kids on 2 acres of garden. Dad hunted and we all
>>fished. Other meat was butchering chickens, a pig, or a cow bought
>>from elsewhere since we didn't have room to grow the pig or the cow.
>
> So you didn't feed 5 kids and two adults on two acres, you needed
> many extra acres to support the meat you'd purchase.

We sold the surplus. that brought in cash.


>
> Assuming that 2 acres will support 7 people, you'd only need over
> a million acres to support the population of NYC.

Only if they planted the way my Dad planted. You don't need as much
acreage if you don't plant with plowing in mind.

>
>>
>>>
>>> The migration from farms to cities started when all the (decent)
>>> farmland was "taken" and the banks (and land speculators) got involved,
>>> driving up the price of land. At that point, the "American dream" of
>>> independence evaporated for most of the population.
>>
>>Migration off the farm happened because of industrial improvements.
>
> No, migration off the farm happened because you can't subdivide a farm
> into infinite pieces. Farm families were large, a necessity to make
> ends meet. Only the eldest would usually be in line to inherit the
> farm, so the remaining offspring had to go somewhere.

No, they all worked the farm. The small farm where my Dad grew up
had his aunts, uncles, grandparents and parents working that farm.
It was "small" compared to acreage other famrs had in this area.

/BAH

[jmfbahciv]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 8:13 am, Peter Flass <Peter_Fl...@Yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Most employees have orders to just hand over the money and don't resist.
>>   I believe one convenience store employee was fired a couple a years
>> ago for trying to stop a robber.
>
> This policy is the safest way to go. Police recommend it to private
> citizens if they get held up, too.

If the citizen doesn't have any money to hand over, the robber hurts
him.

/BAH

[Walter Bushell]

In article
<edfa4896-abff-44cb...@a14g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

Maximum amount of memory on the 709(x) series and the size of the
index registers integers were up to plus or minus 2^35.

Also limit of integers on computers with 16 bit integers. Mayhap the
limit on integers on 64 bit machines is 2^63.

[Dave Garland]

Oh, I do, I do. Never been in either state. Those people scare me.

...though I think under Texas standards, that gives me the right to
kill them.

[Anne & Lynn Wheeler]

Anne & Lynn Wheeler <ly...@garlic.com> writes:
> in aggregate, CBO had report last decade that baseline budget had all
> federal debt retired by 2010 ... however (mostly after fiscal
> responsibility act expired in 2002), tax revenues were cut by $6T (in
> part because of tax loopholes for special interests ... but also general
> tax rate reductions ... mostly benefitting super wealthy) and spending
> increased $6T for a $12T budget gap.

re:
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#16 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?

"The Great Deformation" frequently echos much of "Prophets of War" in
extended discussions about what the "warfare" state has done to the
budget and economy ... undoing everything Ike ("Ike's Bluff") had done
for balanced budget & surplus ("The Great Deformation" differentiates
Ike's current year/actual balanced budget compared to later claims about
planned balanced budgets at some point in the future). The real budget
savaging was done not by democratic administration and "welfare"
programs but by republican administrations and "warfare" programs
(remember this is staunch republican and budget director under reagan).

pg67/loc1609-11

The whole narrative was wrong. Reaching back to the time of Reagan, it
can be shown that fiscal discipline was destroyed first by the “neocons”
who coddled the warfare state in pursuit of national security illusions;
and then by the "tax-cons" who dismantled Uncle Sam’s revenue base in
the name of supply-side doctrine;

pg219/loc4820-22

Nevertheless, the constant dollar spending growth of $1 trillion (2005$)
during the George W. Bush "guns and butter" spree has no peer at all in
the record books. It can be fairly said that when it came to defining
"Big Government" the Bush era left nothing to the imagination.

pg222/loc4880-83

Indeed, Ike’s understanding that the budget choices which count are the
ones reflected in current-year expenditures and receipts could not have
been more jarringly different than what passes for fiscal conservatism
today. The much ballyhooed "Ryan Budget" for fiscal 2012 added $7
trillion to the national debt, for instance, before it would achieve a
balanced budget twenty-five years later; that is, in 2037. Eisenhower
would have thought such a fiscal plan the scribbling of a madman.

... snip ...


Stockman has a lot to say about long list of things that Federal Reserve
has done wrong over the last 30yrs (ever since Volcker was replaced)
... but doesn't quite come up with "bankfare" ... aka bank welfare as
here:

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke lies under oath again
http://johnhively.wordpress.com/2013/04/19/federal-reserve-chairman-ben-bernanke-lies-under-oath-again/

recent posts mentioning neo-cons and "team b"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#59 The Madness of King George Revisited
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#5 Lessons Learned from the Iraq War
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#20 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#49 What Makes bank regulation and insurance Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#54 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#56 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#76 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#5 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#7 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?

other recent posts mentioining "Great Deformation", "Prophets of War"
&/or "Ike's Bluff"
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013c.html#54 NBC's website hacked with malware
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#38 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#62 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#80 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013d.html#93 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#10 The Knowledge Economy Two Classes of Workers
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#12 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#21 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#32 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#43 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#50 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#51 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#53 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#62 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013e.html#67 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#3 What Makes a thread about the European debt crisis Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#13 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#14 What Makes an Architecture Bizarre?
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#18 Air Superiority: Advantage over enemy skies for 60 years
http://www.garlic.com/~lynn/2013f.html#23 What Makes weapons control Bizarre?

--
virtualization experience starting Jan1968, online at home since Mar1970

[Stephen Sprunk]

Unless the number of people was static (or shrinking), they would
eventually outgrow the land's productive potential. Then what?

There are two general historical models for land inheritance:

1. The eldest child inherits everything. Other children would be tenant
farmers at most, and many moved west for a homestead of their own,
joined the Army or moved to the city. (In medieval times, later sons
would often become knights, in hopes of winning their own land, or
priests/monks, living off the Church. These "clerics" evolved into
"clerks", i.e. educated city workers, as society secularized.)

2. The children split the land equally. This seems fairer, but after a
few generations, each plot was too small to support a family. This
meant some siblings would sell their land to one of their siblings, who
would then need to take out a mortgage to pay them--and a bank would
eventually take the land and kick them out.

A popular variant is that only sons inherited, on the assumption that
daughters would marry a man with land of his own. Women from wealthy
families might have a dowry of land, passed on to her daughters when
they married. Still, unless men only had one son and women only had one
daughter, the above problems would eventually appear.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[Stephen Sprunk]

On 19-Apr-13 14:29, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Apr 19, 2:12 pm, Stephen Sprunk <step...@sprunk.org> wrote:
>> Such a registry wouldn't need to be "confidential" because it would
>> be merely a collection of court records that are _already_ public.
>
> A great many court records are not computerized at all. Others are
> accessible only in person at the court house, not remotely.

The courts themselves may not be computerized, but there are private
companies that access the paper public records and put them online--for
a price. This is what private background checks search.

> Yes, if you really want to get the dirt on someone you can access
> 'public records', but it takes time and skill to do so.

Or a few dollars.

> On the other hand, creating another database, especially one
> purposely open to the public and easily accessible, creates privacy
> issues.

The federal registry of convicted felons isn't "open to the public" or
"easily accessible". Why do you think a similar registry of those who
have been adjudicated mentally ill would be different?

You may be thinking of private databases, which _already_ include mental
health judgments--and civil suits, traffic tickets, etc.

> The adverse impacts of the loss of privacy per above are
> substantial.

You mean the loss of _the illusion of_ privacy.

[sdrat]

"Stephen Sprunk" <ste...@sprunk.org> wrote in message

news:kkup24$mg6$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 20-Apr-13 08:52, jmfbahciv wrote:
>> Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> writes:
>>>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>>>> The migration from farms to cities started when all the
>>>>> (decent) farmland was "taken" and the banks (and land
>>>>> speculators) got involved, driving up the price of land. At
>>>>> that point, the "American dream" of independence evaporated for
>>>>> most of the population.
>>>>
>>>> Migration off the farm happened because of industrial
>>>> improvements.
>>>
>>> No, migration off the farm happened because you can't subdivide a
>>> farm into infinite pieces. Farm families were large, a necessity
>>> to make ends meet. Only the eldest would usually be in line to
>>> inherit the farm, so the remaining offspring had to go somewhere.
>>
>> No, they all worked the farm. The small farm where my Dad grew up
>> had his aunts, uncles, grandparents and parents working that farm.

> Unless the number of people was static (or shrinking),

It often was in some parts of europe. In the worst parts of Spain
economically, they weren't even allowed to marry and have kids
unless they had the land to provide a viable existence.

> they would eventually outgrow the land's productive potential. Then what?

> There are two general historical models for land inheritance:
>
> 1. The eldest child inherits everything. Other children would be tenant
> farmers at most, and many moved west for a homestead of their own,
> joined the Army or moved to the city. (In medieval times, later sons
> would often become knights, in hopes of winning their own land, or
> priests/monks, living off the Church. These "clerics" evolved into
> "clerks", i.e. educated city workers, as society secularized.)
>
> 2. The children split the land equally. This seems fairer, but after a
> few generations, each plot was too small to support a family. This
> meant some siblings would sell their land to one of their siblings,
> who would then need to take out a mortgage to pay them--and
> a bank would eventually take the land and kick them out.

There wasn’t any mortgage system at all for much of human history.

[Walter Bushell]

In article <kkup24$mg6$1...@dont-email.me>,

No matter what the social system is expanding population with fixed
resources leads to *problems*.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Apr 20, 9:52 am, jmfbahciv <See.ab...@aol.com> wrote:

> > This policy is the safest way to go.  Police recommend it to private
> > citizens if they get held up, too.
>
> If the citizen doesn't have any money to hand over, the robber hurts
> him.

What the cops suggested to us was to carry a second cheap wallet with
a few bucks to it. If held up, give that to the robber, while keeping
your real wallet secure. Robbers take the wallet and run, they don't
stand there and count it.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <20130420052944.8f85...@eircom.net>, on 04/20/2013

at 05:29 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> said:

>but preferably they should be restrained with less force than they
>intended to apply.

That would be easy to apply given perfect information. In the real
world, you have to guess, and errors have consequences.

>Preventing the crime justifies the minimum damage required to
>achieve the effect

It justifies the minimum force known to be sufficient.

>Killing them is not IMHO acceptable as either punishment or
>preventative.

Is killing them acceptable to prevent a murder? The issue is not what
level of force is permissible against someone that you know won't harm
you, it's what level of force is permissible against an unknown
intruder.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spam...@library.lspace.org

[Andreas Eder]

On 14 Apr 2013, jmfbahciv wrote:

> i told her to pick some tax forms at the library and do the
> taxes for that year just to see if she was able to do them
> herself; she had H&R's forms for that year to help her check her
> work. She was another female who was taught that girls can't do
> math.

What's that got to do with math?
That is elementary arithmetic at best.

'Andreas

--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <lu64n85ojbnv0ietl...@4ax.com>, on 04/19/2013

at 09:40 PM, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> said:

>What if the consequences of the suicider's choice of suicide method
>might affect others?

The you're talking about the use of deadly force to prevent a
different crime, not just to prevent the suicide.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <proto-B20B53....@news.panix.com>, on 04/20/2013

at 10:02 AM, Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> said:

>Maximum amount of memory on the 709(x) series and the size of the
>index registers integers were up to plus or minus 2^35.

No; while the word size was 36 bits, the address size was only 15. The
index registers were also 15 bits.

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 04:47:10 -0400

Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

> In <20130420052944.8f85...@eircom.net>, on 04/20/2013
> at 05:29 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> said:
>
> >but preferably they should be restrained with less force than they
> >intended to apply.
>
> That would be easy to apply given perfect information. In the real
> world, you have to guess, and errors have consequences.
>
> >Preventing the crime justifies the minimum damage required to
> >achieve the effect
>
> It justifies the minimum force known to be sufficient.

That "known to be" is a nasty clause. I might be facing a trained
special forces op in full body armour dosed with PCP - in which case the
minimum force probably involves armour piercing explosive rounds. So that's
the minimum force certain to stop an intruder so that's what I'll use in
all cases.

I don't like that logic.

> >Killing them is not IMHO acceptable as either punishment or
> >preventative.
>
> Is killing them acceptable to prevent a murder? The issue is not what

As a *last* resort yes.

> level of force is permissible against someone that you know won't harm

How about - "someone I have no reason to expect to harm me" ?

> you, it's what level of force is permissible against an unknown
> intruder.

Much hinges here on the expected behaviour of the intruder, round
here they don't come with guns or even knifes because getting caught with
weapons while committing a crime makes the sentence much stiffer, using or
even showing them makes it stiffer still. So a burglar in the house is not
cause to be in fear of my life.

Also the presence of four dogs of assorted sizes around the place
will be noted during casing and will tend to cause burglars to give the
place a miss unless they expect big rewards. Notice how much more effective
the dogs are than *any* weapon - they don't stop the burglary in progress
they stop it happening in the first place and they don't require anyone to
get, load and fire a weapon with sufficient accuracy to do the job before
being prevented from doing so.

Everybody is safer when nobody carries guns - I know Americans tend
to have trouble with this simple truth.

[jmfbahciv]

Americans don't have any problem with that simple truth. The real
problem is that the law abiding people would give up their guns
but the nasty ones will not. If a law passed which took the guns away
from people, the ones who will be armed are the crooks and bullies.

/BAH

[jmfbahciv]

Now consider the survival rates.

/BAH

[jmfbahciv]

Andreas Eder wrote:
> On 14 Apr 2013, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
>> i told her to pick some tax forms at the library and do the
>> taxes for that year just to see if she was able to do them
>> herself; she had H&R's forms for that year to help her check her
>> work. She was another female who was taught that girls can't do
>> math.
>
> What's that got to do with math?
> That is elementary arithmetic at best.

Now do you understand why there's a mess?

/BAH

[Jaimie Vandenbergh]

On 21 Apr 2013 14:41:08 GMT, jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:

>Americans don't have any problem with that simple truth. The real
>problem is that the law abiding people would give up their guns
>but the nasty ones will not. If a law passed which took the guns away
>from people, the ones who will be armed are the crooks and bullies.

Nice people's guns are overwhelmingly used to increase the risk of
them dying.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full

Lots of interesting studies linked.

Cheers - Jaimie
--
"Time's fun when you're having flies" - Kermit the Frog

[Rod Speed]

"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004DAD...@aca2316f.ipt.aol.com...

And that has in fact actually happened in places like Australia when
they took away many of some classes of guns, particularly handguns.

Not completely tho, its still legal to have them for sport and security
personnel etc.

[Rod Speed]

"jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
news:PM0004DAD...@aca2316f.ipt.aol.com...

I don’t believe there is a mess in the sense that women
do believe they cant do basic arithmetic. If they did believe
that you wouldn’t see so many working as book keepers etc
even say 50 years ago.

[Andrew Swallow]

On 21/04/2013 15:41, jmfbahciv wrote:
>
> Americans don't have any problem with that simple truth. The real
> problem is that the law abiding people would give up their guns
> but the nasty ones will not. If a law passed which took the guns away
> from people, the ones who will be armed are the crooks and bullies.
>
> /BAH
>

Good. Carrying a gun would amount to a confession to being a crook or a
bully or both. Off to jail with him.

Andrew Swallow

[Ahem A Rivet's Shot]

On 21 Apr 2013 14:41:08 GMT

Yes it's tricky starting from a point where there are too many
weapons around - the best answer is of course not to have allowed the
situation to arise. Still a ban on guns (with a hand in period) reinforced
by making ammunition hard to obtain (require ID checks, license issued by
local police, limit availability to small numbers at a time and require
written documentation for every round fired with date, time, circumstances,
outcome etc. and no ammunition to be issued at all until every round
already issued is accounted for) should make the problem go away in a few
years. Oh and of course very stiff penalties for being caught with an
illegal gun, even stiffer ones for being shown to have carried it on a
crime, stiffer ones still for showing it - and if it's fired throw away the
keys.

If there's a will to get rid of the guns it can be done.

There will always be crooks with guns, but in many countries the
only people who have to fear those guns are people who deal with those
crooks - especially people who cross them. That's good enough for me.

[Shmuel Metz]

In <20130421105019.aedd...@eircom.net>, on 04/21/2013

at 10:50 AM, Ahem A Rivet's Shot <ste...@eircom.net> said:

> How about - "someone I have no reason to expect to harm me" ?

How about it? It doesn't apply to an intruder in my home?

>Also the presence of four dogs of assorted sizes

Depending on the dogs, those might constitute deadly force. Should
they prosecute you if your dogs kill a burglar?

>Notice how much more effective the dogs are than *any* weapon

There have been cases where a burglar killed watch dogs.

>I know Americans tend to have trouble with this simple truth.

I know that some xenophobes have trouble understanding that the USA is
not a homegenous country in which everybody shares the same
perspective. How may, and what type, of firearm are you assuming that
I own?

[Dave Garland]

On 4/21/2013 1:05 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>
>
> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message

>> Americans don't have any problem with that simple truth. The real
>> problem is that the law abiding people would give up their guns
>> but the nasty ones will not. If a law passed which took the guns away
>> from people, the ones who will be armed are the crooks and bullies.
>
> And that has in fact actually happened in places like Australia when
> they took away many of some classes of guns, particularly handguns.

And that's why law-abiding citizens all over Australia cower in their
houses for fear of the swarms of armed criminals running all over, why
such vast numbers of Australians have been murdered by criminals with
guns.

Oh, wait, somehow it didn't turn out that way.

[Walter Banks]

jmfbahciv wrote:

> Americans don't have any problem with that simple truth. The real
> problem is that the law abiding people would give up their guns
> but the nasty ones will not. If a law passed which took the guns away
> from people, the ones who will be armed are the crooks and bullies.

Aside from the fact that the more guns around the more people get hurt.

Assuming you are correct what is the solution?

Change of gun culture?

w..

[Gene Wirchenko]

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 05:14:20 -0400, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<spam...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote:

>In <lu64n85ojbnv0ietl...@4ax.com>, on 04/19/2013
> at 09:40 PM, Gene Wirchenko <ge...@telus.net> said:
>
>>What if the consequences of the suicider's choice of suicide method
>>might affect others?
>
>The you're talking about the use of deadly force to prevent a
>different crime, not just to prevent the suicide.

What crime? There might not be any criminal intent. I am not
about to trust a potential suicide has carefully considered how to
avoid harming others with his suicide.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko

[Rod Speed]

"Ahem A Rivet's Shot" <ste...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:20130421192813.e818...@eircom.net...

> On 21 Apr 2013 14:41:08 GMT
> jmfbahciv <See....@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Ahem A Rivet's Shot wrote:
>
>> > Everybody is safer when nobody carries guns - I know Americans tend
>> > to have trouble with this simple truth.
>>
>> Americans don't have any problem with that simple truth. The real
>> problem is that the law abiding people would give up their guns
>> but the nasty ones will not. If a law passed which took the guns away
>> from people, the ones who will be armed are the crooks and bullies.
>
> Yes it's tricky starting from a point where there are too many
> weapons around - the best answer is of course not to have allowed the
> situation to arise. Still a ban on guns (with a hand in period) reinforced
> by making ammunition hard to obtain (require ID checks, license issued by
> local police, limit availability to small numbers at a time and require
> written documentation for every round fired with date, time,
> circumstances,
> outcome etc. and no ammunition to be issued at all until every round
> already
> issued is accounted for) should make the problem go away in a few years.

We tried that, it doesn't. The criminals have even more guns than
they ever did before and use them more than they did before too.

> Oh and of course very stiff penalties for being caught with an illegal
> gun, even stiffer ones for being shown to have carried it on a crime,
> stiffer ones still for showing it - and if it's fired throw away the keys.

You have to catch them for that to work.

> If there's a will to get rid of the guns it can be done.

Have fun listing even a single country where that's ever happened.

> There will always be crooks with guns,

Yes, and that's the problem.

> but in many countries the only people who have to
> fear those guns are people who deal with those crooks

Which just happens to be almost everyone with burglary.

> - especially people who cross them.
> That's good enough for me.

But not for everyone.

[sdrat]

"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:zsOdnSljZsy7renM...@bt.com...

No, most obviously with the cops and those
who move payrolls and bank cash etc.

> Off to jail with him.

Not possible with those. And you have to catch the others too.

[Rod Speed]

"Dave Garland" <dave.g...@wizinfo.com> wrote in message
news:kl1du9$t40$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 4/21/2013 1:05 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>>
>> "jmfbahciv" <See....@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> Americans don't have any problem with that simple truth. The real
>>> problem is that the law abiding people would give up their guns
>>> but the nasty ones will not. If a law passed which took the guns away
>>> from people, the ones who will be armed are the crooks and bullies.
>>
>> And that has in fact actually happened in places like Australia when
>> they took away many of some classes of guns, particularly handguns.

> And that's why law-abiding citizens all over Australia cower in their
> houses for fear of the swarms of armed criminals running all over,

Not cower in their houses, but do have a real problem
with the goons that choose to quite literally shoot up
the houses of their enemys in the major capitals.

We are currently getting something like one every couple of weeks currently.

With some executions in the street too.

> why such vast numbers of Australians have been murdered by criminals with
> guns.

They mostly murder each other, but when they
do the most stupid stuff like shoot up houses as
they drive by, there are inevitably not just the
crims that end up dead at times.

> Oh, wait, somehow it didn't turn out that way.

It did, actually on them shooting each other.

[Rod Speed]

"Walter Banks" <wal...@bytecraft.com> wrote in message
news:517449F4...@bytecraft.com...

There is no 'solution', if there was we would have found it by now.

> Change of gun culture?

That isnt even possible and places that didn't have anything
like the gun culture that the US has still have a problem with
a tiny subset of the population using guns undesirably.

Its just like anything else, once something has been invented,
its not even possible to uninvent it.

The Japanese did ban guns for a while, quite
literally, but that didn't last forever ever there.

[Rod Speed]

"Gene Wirchenko" <ge...@telus.net> wrote in message
news:5oj8n8t2ldbrg9mnp...@4ax.com...

There arent very many that physically harm anyone
else when suiciding by using a gun or a rope.