Re: No comments from the GUN_Lovers
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:qqqdnVF9UMmPJ5DT...@earthlink.com...
> Admittedly, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is a good idea for
> some.
For *everyone* in the long run.
> Those to whom going green is a religious experience can feel some
> accomplishment in their own personal lives while simultaneously despairing
> over the state of Mother Earth.
What a bizarre place your mind is. For you to believe that someone who
thinks relying less on fossils fuels means that person is a tree-hugging
eco-looney who wants the human race to return to living in caves reveals a
certain delusional paranoia on your part.
> By every measure, energy gulping societies are healthy, wealthy, and wise.
Factually wrong, unless you think ingesting countless tons of mercury and
other unhealthy substances from the coal we burn to make much of the
electricity we use just doesn't count. It also seems to have escaped your
attention that they aren't making any more fossil fuels, at least at a rate
that would ever be useful to the human race. So the cost of oil will go up
as it gets harder and harder to find and extract, and even coal will run out
some day. Sooner or later we're going to need other sources of energy, is
there some good reason why we shouldn't get started on that now?
> Conversely, those societies who gather sticks to ward off the nighttime
> cold live short lives of despair, hunger, and tribulation.
Do you know what a straw man argument is? How about a false dichotomy? You
rely on both those quite often. Since I haven't proposed returning to a
primitive hunter-gatherer culture, for you to pretend that I have or to
pretend that reducing fossil fuel use would necessarily require that is
disingenuous at best.
> What the environmentalists don't seem to understand is converting to
> renewables is not a zero-sum game. EVERY move in that direction costs more
> than it profits society.
The irony in that statement is striking due to your use of the word
"renewables" because it means you are defending our reliance on
NON-renewalable sources of energy. What will eventually happen to
non-renewable sources of energy? Why, they'll run out some day after
becoming increasingly espensive, won't they. Who will be sitting pretty
when that happens, societies that have transitioned to renewable sources, or
the nations that are still scraping holes in the ground looking for more
coal?
>> Again, won't the day we can tell OPEC to go pound sand be a fine day?
> It would be a fine day if every child had a pony.
There it is, those logical fallacies spill out of you like corn from a torn
sack.
> It's not going to happen and it's not even a worthwhile goal.
Good Lord.
> Already several countries can flip off OPEC (i.e., Sudan, Somalia, Burma,
> and others).
You're forgetting Brazil, which has a booming economy and is rapidly
replacing imported oil with ethanol.
> I do agree that riding a bike would be good for us. I recently took a
> plane trip from Houston to Buffalo (five hours). Not only did I have to
> spend four days in western New York but, equally bad, got hit with a deep
> vein thrombosis which resulted in a pulmonary embolism! Five days in the
> hospital and $70,000 later, I'm good as new. But I learned a valuable
> lesson.
If you can't sit down for five hours without ending up in the hospital then
spending lots of time on a bike is something you should seriously consider.
> Next time I'll consider a bicycle. Or a pony.
Think hot air balloon, you wouldn't need to buy any propane to heat the air.
Robert Green
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
>
> > Those to whom going green is a religious experience can feel some
> > accomplishment in their own personal lives while simultaneously
despairing
> > over the state of Mother Earth.
>
> What a bizarre place your mind is. For you to believe that someone who
> thinks relying less on fossils fuels means that person is a tree-hugging
> eco-looney who wants the human race to return to living in caves reveals a
> certain delusional paranoia on your part.
What gets me the most is that it's OK to leave our kids with no gas, oil or
clean water but not a national debt that's not really out of proportion to
things we spend money on. Tax revenue is down because of the Bush tax cuts
that overheated the economy into a meltdown. Yet the Republicans insist
that those tax cuts, though proven disastrous, are off the table. They are
poised to enter the next election as the party of the ultrarich, out of
touch with the millions who are struggling to keep afloat. Again.
I read that a CBO reports says the care for the wounded in AfRaq may top out
at 950 BILLION dollars. For what? To force democracy on nomadic tribesman
and basically feudal societies? To supposedly deny them a place to plot an
attack that was in progress HERE for months without anyone catching on? Are
we going to take on every backwater country in the world the terrorists
might use?
We have bought into the ludicrous idea of fighting a surgical war with
almost no casualties. If that was true, then where is that nearly trillion
dollar bill for wounded care coming from? Unhurt soldiers? Not likely.
We got into this deficit hole by succumbing to terror and allowing ourselves
spending billions on the adult diaper obsessed TSA. This is a bunch that
can't even keep a Nigerian that hasn't bathed for weeks and is using a
stolen ID and boarding pass off our jetliners.
We got here by spending trillions fighting an asymmetrical war with
goatherders who can just wait us out as we exhaust our blood and treasure.
NPR may be a popular target, but it's peanut dust compared to the real money
sinks. Billions in tax breaks for companies that don't pay taxes? Caps on
what the wealthy pay into Social Security? Bust up those sweet deals and
you can make Social Security solvent for a long time. Remove exemptions
for corporate jets. Eliminate the Bush tax cuts. They obviously DID NOT
WORK or else we wouldn't be here.
I am just waiting for Congress to let the US default and watch as a certain
party snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like they did the last time
they pulled his stunt. It doesn't seem credible that people will continue
to vote for tax breaks for people whose lifestyle would hardly change if
they had to go back to the old rules. The pre-Bush tax laws kept this
country solvent.
Did you make a million in hedge fund trading because you live in America?
Well fuc&ing pay for that good fortune and your access to the American
market, your protection by the American military, the FBI, the NSA, the
CIA - all those entities that make sure the rich keep their wealth, aren't
kidnapped or see their assets nationalized. Don't like it? Try China where
they execute crooks like Madoff. <sermon over>
I'm pissed because I saw X-rays of some kid at Walter Reed that had the left
side of his skull pulverized by an IED. What for? Some Godless fuc&ing
Iraqi or Afghani goatherders who hate us just for being there trying to
*help* their sorry asses? WE HATE THEM TOO! So why spend trillions to
"liberate" themselves when history shows they'll enslave themselves to a
strongman dictator as soon as we leave? As they said so well in "Top
Gun" -- The Defense Dept. regrets to inform you that your sons are dead
because they were stupid. We were really stupid not to just leave Iraq
after not finding WMD's.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092099/quotes
Even retiring SecDef Gates, who hand-writes condolence letters to all KIA's
said the time for fighting wars of choice is over.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gates-farewell-20110619,0,870493.story
<<And he has become a voice of caution and even outright opposition to
committing American forces to new wars. Gates publicly questioned the need
to join the NATO air war in Libya, arguing that the military already was
overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq. Since then, he has sought to limit
the U.S. role . . . the longer he is in office, Gates said, the "heavier"
the burden he bears when he is asked to make decisions that inevitably
involve sending more American troops to their deaths.
"I've got a military that's exhausted," he said. "Let's just finish the wars
we're in and keep focused on that instead of signing up for other wars of
choice.">>
I could have told him that 10 years ago. Wars of necessity will come soon
enough. Skip the wars of choice, especially those that have no tangible
payoff for us. We're bordering on "Fight Club" craziness. Libya in a
firefight? Let's go see! NOT. Their trouble, their fight. Who even knows
if we're putting Islamic terrorist in control of Libya. Like an old fire
dog, we hear the sirens of war and go running.
--
Bobby G.
HeyBub
>> Those to whom going green is a religious experience can feel some
>> accomplishment in their own personal lives while simultaneously
>> despairing over the state of Mother Earth.
>
> What a bizarre place your mind is. For you to believe that someone
> who thinks relying less on fossils fuels means that person is a
> tree-hugging eco-looney who wants the human race to return to living
> in caves reveals a certain delusional paranoia on your part.
I don't think living in caves is their GOAL, but it certainly the
consequence when they reach their targets.
>
>> By every measure, energy gulping societies are healthy, wealthy, and
>> wise.
>
> Factually wrong, unless you think ingesting countless tons of mercury
> and other unhealthy substances from the coal we burn to make much of
> the electricity we use just doesn't count. It also seems to have
> escaped your attention that they aren't making any more fossil fuels,
> at least at a rate that would ever be useful to the human race. So
> the cost of oil will go up as it gets harder and harder to find and
> extract, and even coal will run out some day. Sooner or later we're
> going to need other sources of energy, is there some good reason why
> we shouldn't get started on that now?
Factually correct. Every energy consuming society has seen an increase in
life expectancy, diminution in disease, fewer childhood deaths, more choices
on cable TV, and an overall greater quality of life.
As for "making more fossil fuels," you may be correct, but we're accessing
more*. For example, the proven reserves of natural gas in the US is FIVE
TIMES what it was just a decade ago. Best estimates are that we have more
than a 100 years of gas currently available even while accounting for
increased use. We have so much gas, that terminals that were being built to
unload LNG from foreign sources are being converted to EXPORT LNG to
less-endowed environs.
>> What the environmentalists don't seem to understand is converting to
>> renewables is not a zero-sum game. EVERY move in that direction
>> costs more than it profits society.
>
> The irony in that statement is striking due to your use of the word
> "renewables" because it means you are defending our reliance on
> NON-renewalable sources of energy. What will eventually happen to
> non-renewable sources of energy? Why, they'll run out some day after
> becoming increasingly espensive, won't they. Who will be sitting
> pretty when that happens, societies that have transitioned to
> renewable sources, or the nations that are still scraping holes in
> the ground looking for more coal?
>
So what if we run out? I have unbounded confidence in human ingenuity. The
Romans denuded North Africa and most of Europe to make charcoal. Just about
the time the trees ran out, Europeans, especially the British, started
mining coal and it was coal that powered the industrial revolution.
Then we found something cheaper and more versatile than coal - petroleum.
While we still have and use a lot of coal**, petroleum has its place. If we
ever run out of oil - or it becomes too expensive to use - we'll find
something else.
>>> Again, won't the day we can tell OPEC to go pound sand be a fine
>>> day?
>
>> It would be a fine day if every child had a pony.
>
> There it is, those logical fallacies spill out of you like corn from
> a torn sack.
>
You're the one pining for a fine day, not me.
>> It's not going to happen and it's not even a worthwhile goal.
>
> Good Lord.
>
>> Already several countries can flip off OPEC (i.e., Sudan, Somalia,
>> Burma, and others).
>
> You're forgetting Brazil, which has a booming economy and is rapidly
> replacing imported oil with ethanol.
>
And Brazil is rapidly expanding exploration for more oil. Heck, the US is
going to loan Brazil $1 billion to explore offshore.
And if Brazil DOES manage to curtail their oil usage, what will they use to
make plastic grocery bags? Eh? Eh?
--------------------
* Proven domestic reserves of oil and gas increased significantly in 2009.
Oil reserves increased by 9%, gas by 11%.
http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/cr.html
From 2006 to 2010, NG production increased 48% and is expected to quadruple
by 2035. The current price - and one that is expected to remain for the
forseeable future - is $4.25/1000 cu ft. (down from $15.38 in December
2005).
----
** A reasonable estimate is that we have about 250 years of available coal
reserves in the US.
http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=coal_reserves
Kurt Ullman
"Robert Green" <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
> What gets me the most is that it's OK to leave our kids with no gas, oil or
> clean water but not a national debt that's not really out of proportion to
> things we spend money on. Tax revenue is down because of the Bush tax cuts
> that overheated the economy into a meltdown. Yet the Republicans insist
> that those tax cuts, though proven disastrous, are off the table. They are
> poised to enter the next election as the party of the ultrarich, out of
> touch with the millions who are struggling to keep afloat. Again.
Of course, that would be nice if it was true. The Bush tax cuts
took a whole bunch of people off of the tax roles entirely. If you look
at the IRS figures, the lowest quintile actually had a negative income
tax (they were getting more back in credits, etc. than they were paying
in. AFter the Bush taxes, the TWO lowest quintiles had negative income
taxes. (Stat abstract of the US, "Shares of Individual tax liabilities
for all households by Comprehensive Household Income Quintile).
California is another reason you don't want to be too dependent on
taxing the rich. Nearly half of CA's taxes before the recession came
from the top 1% of earners (in this case $490,000+). High earners also
have high volitility with their earnings falling twice as much as the
rest of the population. WHen they crashed, they took CA's tax base with
them.
California
2007 Income tax revenue from top 1% of earners:
45%
2007 Personal income tax receipts (thousands):
$53,318,287
2009 Personal income tax receipts (thousands):
$44,355,959
Percent change in receipts, 2007-2009 :
-16.81%
Source: Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy
As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more
unstable. Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell
16%, compared to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according
to the IRS. Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to
financial markets逆hrough stock-based pay or investments逆hey are more
prone to sudden shocks. (Albeit both ways)
The income swings have created more extreme booms and busts for
state governments. In New York, the top 1% of taxpayers contribute more
to the state's year-to-year tax swings than all the other taxpayers
combined, according to a study by the Rockefeller Institute of
Government. In its January report downgrading New Jersey's credit
rating, Standard & Poor's stated that New Jersey's wealth "translates
into a high ability to pay taxes but might also contribute to potential
revenue volatility."
I would suggest, with at least as much backing, that the Clinton
tax cuts did the same thing.
> sinks. Billions in tax breaks for companies that don't pay taxes?
You do realize that the first tax break for corporations (the one
about expensing of R&D) is at 17 on the list of "tax expenditures"? The
rest go to individuals or through the company to individuals (deductions
for employer Keogh, etc.) Heck its only about 1/5th of the "tax
expenditure" for not paying cap gains on a house sale. (Tax Expenditure
estimates relating to individual and corp. income taxes by selected
function. Stat Abstract of the US)
Caps on
> what the wealthy pay into Social Security? Bust up those sweet deals and
> you can make Social Security solvent for a long time.
Not really. The main problem with SS is that the "surplus" since the
getgo has been in put in non-marketable treasury securities (by the law)
with no designated method to pay them back. THAT is the whole problem
with SS solvency. And it had nothing to do with Bush tax cuts.
>
> I am just waiting for Congress to let the US default and watch as a certain
> party snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like they did the last time
> they pulled his stunt. It doesn't seem credible that people will continue
> to vote for tax breaks for people whose lifestyle would hardly change if
> they had to go back to the old rules. The pre-Bush tax laws kept this
> country solvent.
Nonsense. We had deficits all the way back to LBJ. If you take out
the positive results of the SS "surplus" (remember the one that came
from higher taxes going into government securities with no payback
mechanism) there was only one actual current account surplus during
Clinton and that was razor thin and went away when you took out the
similar shenanigans in the MCare side. (Only in the Bizzaro world of
government accounting can you take a long-term liability (the money owed
to SS) and turn it into a short-term asset.) The surpluses had peaked
long before the election, and were back in deficit during the last FY
Clinton would have been responsible for.
Lots of the reason for the downturn is related to the business
cycle. We had many years (thanks to a very nice Fed and unprecedented
productivity gains) with great expansions followed by (historically)
short recessions and pull backs. We got fat and happy and figured it
would go on forever. Unlike other recessions where at least one of the
players (government, business, or individuals) had money, this was a
time when no one did. That, and returning to the mean, meant that this
was going to be longer.
> "I've got a military that's exhausted," he said. "Let's just finish the wars
> we're in and keep focused on that instead of signing up for other wars of
> choice.">>
>
> I could have told him that 10 years ago. Wars of necessity will come soon
> enough.
Heck I could have told him that in '75 or so.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:bMidnfseqIGF6ZPT...@earthlink.com...
> I don't think living in caves is their GOAL, but it certainly the
> consequence when they reach their targets.
Riiight, buying a car that gets better mileage is for sure going to help
send up back to the stone age, likewise with insulating the attic and even
putting on a sweater rather than turning up the heat.
> Factually correct. Every energy consuming society has seen an increase in
> life expectancy, diminution in disease, fewer childhood deaths, more
> choices on cable TV, and an overall greater quality of life.
One in six babies born in America has been exposed to dangerous levels of
mercury in utero, and the latest generation of Americans is the first in
many decades with a lower life expectancy than its parents. Lag time is a
bitch.
> As for "making more fossil fuels," you may be correct, but we're accessing
> more*. For example, the proven reserves of natural gas in the US is FIVE
> TIMES what it was just a decade ago. Best estimates are that we have more
> than a 100 years of gas currently available even while accounting for
> increased use. We have so much gas, that terminals that were being built
> to unload LNG from foreign sources are being converted to EXPORT LNG to
> less-endowed environs.
Do you know how they get that gas out of the ground and what that's doing to
water supplies in some areas? Maybe we can just import drinking water when
our own supplies are contaminated huh?
What happens when even those supplies of natural gas are exhausted? At what
point do we start working on alternative energy sources, and is there some
good reason why it shouldn't be now? Do you normally wait for an emergency
to develop before you take corrective action?
> So what if we run out? I have unbounded confidence in human ingenuity. The
> Romans denuded North Africa and most of Europe to make charcoal. Just
> about the time the trees ran out, Europeans, especially the British,
> started mining coal and it was coal that powered the industrial
> revolution.
That's a beautiful summation of the self-absorbed foolishness that infects
many Americans. Rather than put on a sweater instead of turning up the
heat, you're happy to pass the problem onto a future generation. You're
also careful to avoid those historical examples of cultures that *didn't*
find alternative resources and thus disappeared, like the Mayans or various
peoples in the ancient Mediterranean and pre-Columbian American cultures
that learned the hard way about deforestation. Oh, but that will never
happen to us, we're way too clever for that. And all that stuff about
what's happening to the oceans and the rainforest, pfffft, we'll all be dead
by the time that bill comes due, so who cares? Too bad for our descendants,
but that's the way it goes.
Robert Green
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
<stuff snipped>
> One in six babies born in America has been exposed to dangerous levels of
> mercury in utero, and the latest generation of Americans is the first in
> many decades with a lower life expectancy than its parents. Lag time is a
> bitch.
>
> > As for "making more fossil fuels," you may be correct, but we're
accessing
> > more*. For example, the proven reserves of natural gas in the US is FIVE
> > TIMES what it was just a decade ago.
That's simply because the Feds allowed for changes in the way reserves are
calculated:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/us/27gasside.html
S.E.C. Shift Leads to Worries of Overestimation of Reserves
By IAN URBINA
Published: June 27, 2011
<<In 2008, the stocks of many natural gas companies were sinking because of
the financial meltdown, recession fears and falling gas prices. But they
began to rebound after a sweeping rule change by the Securities and Exchange
Commission, intended to modernize how energy companies report their gas
reserves. As part of that change, the commission acquiesced to industry
pressure by giving these companies greater latitude in how they estimated
reserves in areas that were not yet drilled. The new rules, which were
several years in the making, were officially adopted only weeks before the
S.E.C. chairman under President George W. Bush, Christopher Cox, stepped
down. . . .the S.E.C. said that the companies, for reasons of trade secrecy,
did not have to disclose precise details about the technology they used to
estimate reserve sizes. Though the commission considered requiring
third-party audits to verify the reserve estimates, the idea was dropped in
the end. >>
Hmm, sounds like when Moody's rated CDO's with AAA ratings but they were not
"reality based." Don't want any impartial auditors to get in the way of a
new oil and gas bubble. Pretty sickening stuff, if you ask me. We learned
less than nothing from the recent crash.
--
Bobby G.
HeyBub
>>> As for "making more fossil fuels," you may be correct, but we're
>>> accessing more*. For example, the proven reserves of natural gas in
>>> the US is FIVE TIMES what it was just a decade ago.
>
> That's simply because the Feds allowed for changes in the way
> reserves are calculated:
>
Could be, but it's more likely the new technique of "fracking" to tease more
gas out of shale.
Whatever the case, we've got five times more gas than we thought we did.
An article yesterday touted conditions in North Dakota. Unemployment is 3.6%
as the shale oil deposits are being worked around the clock. Burger flippers
are making $10-15 per hour at McDonalds. In the western part of the state,
workers are living in tents and growing beards. It's like the California
gold rush!
Robert Green
news:GsOdnW-5mMzOzI3T...@earthlink.com...
You have read about all the wells and aquifiers that are being contaminated
by fracking?
<
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38334031/ns/us_news-environment/t/epa-drills-down-fracking-technique/ >
<< "We've got to get it right," said Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., a sponsor of the
so-called FRAC Act, which would repeal the 2005 exemption and require
regulation of fracking by the EPA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
"We allowed coal over many, many decades to be an industry that was so
unregulated that it was allowed to do virtually whatever it wanted, and now
we have numerous environmentally adverse impacts," he said.
Though the drilling rush into Pennsylvania is barely two years old, more
than 3,500 permits have been issued and about 1,500 wells drilled, with
thousands more expected. Environmental problems are already bubbling up:
methane leaks contaminating private water wells, major spillage of diesel
and fracking chemicals above ground, and fish kill in a creek.>>
--
Bobby G.
Robert Green
news:sPOdnX7etcxQGZPT...@earthlink.com...
> In article <iuln9p$5te$1...@dont-email.me>,
> "Robert Green" <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > What gets me the most is that it's OK to leave our kids with no gas, oil
or
> > clean water but not a national debt that's not really out of proportion
to
> > things we spend money on. Tax revenue is down because of the Bush tax
cuts
> > that overheated the economy into a meltdown. Yet the Republicans insist
> > that those tax cuts, though proven disastrous, are off the table. They
are
> > touch with the millions who are struggling to keep afloat. Again.
> Of course, that would be nice if it was true. The Bush tax cuts
> took a whole bunch of people off of the tax roles entirely. If you look
> at the IRS figures, the lowest quintile actually had a negative income
> tax (they were getting more back in credits, etc. than they were paying
> in. AFter the Bush taxes, the TWO lowest quintiles had negative income
> taxes. (Stat abstract of the US, "Shares of Individual tax liabilities
> for all households by Comprehensive Household Income Quintile).
Great. You're proving that the poorest people are becoming poorer. One of
the biggest reasons working people pay no taxes is because they have no
income. Quite unlike the upper brackets who pay no taxes because they have
teams of hard working accountants looking for loopholes.
> California is another reason you don't want to be too dependent on
> taxing the rich. Nearly half of CA's taxes before the recession came
> from the top 1% of earners (in this case $490,000+). High earners also
> have high volitility with their earnings falling twice as much as the
> rest of the population. WHen they crashed, they took CA's tax base with
> them.
Hmmm. When the rooster crows, the sun soon rises. We had better never get
rid of all the roosters. When a $500K a year earner loses half his income,
he might have to sell one of his Porsches. When a family of four earning
$40K a year loses half, they end up in homeless shelters. That's the
problem with spouting quintile differences and statistics. It doesn't
describe the real world.
> As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more
> unstable. Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell
> 16%, compared to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according
> to the IRS. Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to
> financial markets > prone to sudden shocks. (Albeit both ways)
Oh my, the hedge fund investors got scalped. My heart bleeds. I'll swallow
some Band-aids to see if that stanches the blood flow. From what you've
written, I'm beginning to think that you're not like most of us working
stiffs and you're a member of the tax bracket threatened by ending the cuts
for the wealthy.
When Mitch McConnell insists that "it's time for Washington to take the hit,
not the taxpayers" he's trying to put a scare into the population and it's
totally bogus. If Mitch manages to shut down the Federal government just
like the champion of common man, "I got a million $ line of credit at
Tiffany's" Newt did, the taxpayers will be the ones to take it on the chin,
not Washington. When basic services are cut drastically and the faith in
the American economy shrivels world-wide it's the working American citizen
that will suffer the most. Hopefully, when the R's pull that stunt again,
people will remember in 2012 who FTUTA with yet another ill-conceived
publicity stunt that enshrines the R's as the party that never learns from
its mistakes.
If the Bush tax cuts are extended beyond their expiration at the end of
2012, lost revenue and related interest costs would account for 45 percent
of the projected $11.2 trillion in deficits in this decade. Almost half.
Just by ending the disastrous tax cuts that have helped land us in the
current mess. People clamor for killing Islamic fundamentalists, but when
the bill comes it's "NPR is the Great Satan." Just like any other human
endeavor, people don't like to pay for what they've consumed long after
they've consumed it. Want war? Be prepared to pay for it and not blame
people who had nothing to do with the horrendous cost of fighting wars that
have gone on longer than WWI and II *combined.* The final insult? The
Chinese are making the oil deals in Iraq.
The Republicans cut taxes to buy votes. Dat's da facts, Jack. Worse, yet,
they've made it seem somehow unpatriotic to pay taxes. But Justice Oliver
Wendell Holmes said: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Cutting unnecessary subsidies for oil companies could raise $40 billion over
10 years, while a tax accounting change that would also apply mainly to oil
companies could raise $72 billion over five years. Getting rid of a tax
break for corporate jets would raise about $3 billion. Closing a loophole
that allows private-equity money mangers to pay tax at about the lowest rate
in the tax code would raise about $20 billion over 10 years.
The Republicans are absolutely stonewalling any rational way out of this
mess. The Democrats seek to limit the value of various write-offs for
taxpayers making more than $500,000. That could possibly save upwards of
$100 billion over a decade. I agree that they do not add up to much in the
context of a deal that demands $2 trillion to $4 trillion in deficit
reduction but every little bit helps. How ironic that the target figure
basically encompasses the costs of two wars of choice we have embroiled
ourselves in as well as paying for the diaper obsessed TSA that allows
odiferous Nigerians hustlers with stolen ID's to fly cross-country.
Spending billions to poorly protect us from incidents that typically cost
only in the millions when they occur is just bad business and basically just
adds to the grief of modern life. Is there a rational person alive who
thinks the 9/11 terrorists could pull that stunt again? Yet we lock those
damn barn doors at a horrendous cost. Even the Republicans are on the TSA's
case after demand we waste all that money in the first place.
While much of that spending was bi-partisan, the truth is the lies Bush told
about WMD's led us here.
"Now if these men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King
that led them to it."
-- Henry V, Shakespeare.
It is surely a "black matter" and GWB's historical legacy will forever be
stained with the lie that may have led the US to bankruptcy. That's what
shutting down the government means. We're out of gas.
This deficit fixation is meant to take attention away from the far more
urgent problem of unemployment. It's the standard Republican shell game.
To reduce the deficit requires a plan for spending cuts AND tax increases
that can be implemented as the economy recovers. You can't "cut" your way
out of the bill for two wars that will be coming due for decades to come as
we care for the horribly wounded soldiers blown apart by IEDs. But it was
good money for Blackwater, Halliburton and many more Cheney "friends." Good
money literally carved out of the flesh of patriotic soldiers willing to die
for what the thought was America, but what in reality was Big Business.
<stuff snipped>
> You do realize that the first tax break for corporations (the one
> about expensing of R&D) is at 17 on the list of "tax expenditures"?
Because it is 17th on the list we should ignore it? Really?
> Caps on what the wealthy pay into Social Security? Bust up those sweet
deals and
> > you can make Social Security solvent for a long time.
> Not really. The main problem with SS is that the "surplus" since the
> getgo has been in put in non-marketable treasury securities (by the law)
> with no designated method to pay them back. THAT is the whole problem
> with SS solvency. And it had nothing to do with Bush tax cuts.
Read what I wrote. CAPS ON WHAT THE WEALTHY PAY IN TO SS. How does that
turn into "Bush Tax Cuts?" If you put an end to the cap on their
contribution to SS, the insolvency problem just about goes away. Why do so
many poor people pay X percent of their total income to SS but the rich get
to pay less and less as they make more and more? WTF??? I smell the hand of
the Republicans, the party of the uber-rich that uses fraud, accounting
tricks and social fear-mongering to get people to vote for them and then
screws them to the wall by giving break after break to their wealthy
friends. A million dollar line of credit at Tiffany's is ALL people need to
know about how the Republican leadership operates. They DO NOT represent
most Americans. Anybody here have a million dollar line of credit at
Tiffany's?
> > I am just waiting for Congress to let the US default and watch as a
certain
> > party snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like they did the last
time
> > they pulled his stunt. It doesn't seem credible that people will
continue
> > to vote for tax breaks for people whose lifestyle would hardly change if
> > they had to go back to the old rules. The pre-Bush tax laws kept this
> > country solvent.
> Nonsense. We had deficits all the way back to LBJ.
Geez, Kurt, are you operating from some canned Republican screed? Again,
READ WHAT I WROTE.I never said we didn't have deficits before. We just never
had deficits this monstrous. Remember there was a time when we also had
surpluses. With Clinton. The deficits became outrageously large after the
Bush tax cuts and they REMAIN that way. The rich just aren't paying their
fair share. They and their Wall St. pals have rigged the system and raided
the pension funds of hard-working Americans across the nation in the most
obscene transfer of wealth we've seen since the Great Depression. It's got
to stop and that will only happen when voters realize that it was the
Republicans that gave their rich friends and rich corporations the sweetest
tax deals ever porked out of Congress.
> If you take out
> the positive results of the SS "surplus" (remember the one that came
> from higher taxes going into government securities with no payback
> mechanism) there was only one actual current account surplus during
> Clinton and that was razor thin and went away when you took out the
> similar shenanigans in the MCare side.
Nice of you to notice we did have a surplus at one time and it wasn't a
Republican one.
> Lots of the reason for the downturn is related to the business
> cycle. We had many years (thanks to a very nice Fed and unprecedented
> productivity gains) with great expansions followed by (historically)
> short recessions and pull backs.
A "nice" Fed? You mean a stupid one obsessed with good short terms numbers
(like Wall St.) that kept handing out cheap money to fuel the real estate
spec. bubble. Which landed us here, with a government shutdown looming, a
fractured housing market that's still stalled and people afraid to invest in
a stock market they perceive as crooked. By bailing out the banks with MORE
cheap money, people can't even get a decent return on savings. So much for
loving those Bush tax cuts for the uber rich.
> > "I've got a military that's exhausted," he said. "Let's just finish the
wars
> > we're in and keep focused on that instead of signing up for other wars
of
> > choice.">>
> > I could have told him that 10 years ago. Wars of necessity will come
soon
> > enough.
> Heck I could have told him that in '75 or so.
Well, apparently no one spoke loudly enough and those that challenged the
Bush lies about WMD had their careers ruined. Same for anyone that
challenged free-market, Ayn Rand ass-kissing Alan Greenspan, the great God
with feet of clay that brought us to the brink of collapse trying to make
the economy look good in the short run by lowering the interest rates over
and over again until they're so low, there's little more fiddling that can
be done with them.
Now, although people need to save, there's little incentive to do so because
the Fed STILL makes it easier for banks to get money from them than from
depositors. The system is badly broken and the Republicans have no plan to
fix it other than to keep the wealth flowing from taxpayers into the hands
of the uber-rich. Their plan is pointing the finger at the NPR and the
poorest and most vulnerable people in the country instead of the rich and
the corporations like GE that pay no taxes because they can lobby for all
the sweet deals they want with their political war che$t and their hundreds
of lobbyists and accountants.
Statisticians can torture the data to make them say anything they want.
Truth is what people know about their own financial situation. For most
people, 8 years of Bush's wild war spending has led us to a far less
comfortable life than we had before. While some people pull down $100M
paydays the rest of us wonder if we have enough to live to even a meager old
age. Where, Kurt, do you think the hedge fund manager's obscene wealth
comes from? The pension funds and IRAs of the working stiff. I've had
enough of the BS. Tax the rich and get BACK the money stolen from the
average citizen. Bush, for all his posturing, was never a "man of the
people." Most commoners I know don't hang out with Saudi royalty.
Make the rich pay back what they stole from the average citizens of the US,
helped by Bush putting the SEC on starvation rations and Wall St. selling
toxic waste to pension funds across the world. Tighten up the rules so it
CAN'T happen again. Why are the Republicans fighting sensible capital
requirements for banks and increased oversight of investment vehicles like
CDOs? Because it endangers their rich patron's ability to steal from the
working class. Only the vote can equalize things again and it might take
someone even more determined than Obama to make the necessary changes. It
certainly won't be anyone from the current field of Republican hopefuls.
--
Bobby G.
Kurt Ullman
"Robert Green" <robert_g...@yah00.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Great. You're proving that the poorest people are becoming poorer. One of
> the biggest reasons working people pay no taxes is because they have no
> income. Quite unlike the upper brackets who pay no taxes because they have
> teams of hard working accountants looking for loopholes.
Paying no taxes has nothing to do with the fact they pay NEGATIVE
taxes. Especially since the biggest reason they have a negative income
tax is because they qualify for the EARNED income tax credit.
>
> > California is another reason you don't want to be too dependent on
> > taxing the rich. Nearly half of CA's taxes before the recession came
> > from the top 1% of earners (in this case $490,000+). High earners also
> > have high volitility with their earnings falling twice as much as the
> > rest of the population. WHen they crashed, they took CA's tax base with
> > them.
>
> Hmmm. When the rooster crows, the sun soon rises. We had better never get
> rid of all the roosters. When a $500K a year earner loses half his income,
> he might have to sell one of his Porsches. When a family of four earning
> $40K a year loses half, they end up in homeless shelters. That's the
> problem with spouting quintile differences and statistics. It doesn't
> describe the real world.
Of course it does. The more you make, the more volatile your
income is, especially if it is largely from investments or other similar
things. When the guy making $500 K loses half his income, then the taxes
aren't paid on $250K. When a person making $40 K loses half his income,
the taxes aren't paid on 20K (actually I'd have to look, but that may
put them in the negative tax quintiles). The point being made on my part
is that income taxes on the rich are NOT a steady source of income.
>
> > As they've grown, the incomes of the wealthy have become more
> > unstable. Between 2007 and 2008, the incomes of the top-earning 1% fell
> > 16%, compared to a decline of 4% for U.S. earners as a whole, according
> > to the IRS. Because today's highest salaries are usually linked to
> > financial markets > prone to sudden shocks. (Albeit both ways)
>
> Oh my, the hedge fund investors got scalped. My heart bleeds. I'll swallow
> some Band-aids to see if that stanches the blood flow. From what you've
> written, I'm beginning to think that you're not like most of us working
> stiffs and you're a member of the tax bracket threatened by ending the cuts
> for the wealthy.
You'd be wrong. I was, a few years ago. Now my income has fallen
from over $250K to around $70K. My only saving grace is that I am a
penny pincher by nature and lived well below my means. Although now it
is a lot closer than I would like.
> If the Bush tax cuts are extended beyond their expiration at the end of
> 2012, lost revenue and related interest costs would account for 45 percent
> of the projected $11.2 trillion in deficits in this decade. Almost half.
I've seen that, but I have never gotten a good idea of how that is
figured. I have also never been impressed with this figure anyway since
it is usually made up from "models". I have, over the years, looked at
the Joint Committee on Taxation scoring for tax cuts and tax increases
alike. They NEVER done what the theorists thought they would. Largely
because these are based on assumptions that seldom come through and yet
are set in stone. The best one I have found over the last 30 years or
so, actually called it correctly for the first TWO years of the ten.
Then, not so much. They also assume that tax rules have no impact on
behaviors, and that has been debunked for years, actually decades. SO,
they assume that every penny of every increase or decrease goes to the
bottom line equally, and it doesn't.
Let's look, for instance, at the JCT's scoring of RR's '81 tax cut.
(that was pre-internet and had to photocopy the report so it is handier
than some of the others According to the estimates, all of the various
tax cuts would net out to -$1,565 million in '81, -$37, 656 million in
'82, -92,732 million in '83, -149,963 in '84, -199,311 in '85 and
-267,627 in '86.
Using 1980 as base ($517 billion) All the numbers are in billions
81 82 83
JCT impact -1.656 -37.65 -92.373
Suggested income 515.34 477.69 385.317
Actual 599.00 617.00 600.00
JCT off by 84.00 140.00 215.00
By just the third year the JCT was off by over $125 billion. ANd, I
would point out, is just for the year. I did not figure out how much
they were off cumulative. ANd this was just for the first 3 years before
I lost interest.
> Just by ending the disastrous tax cuts that have helped land us in the
> current mess.
Or had nothing to do with it.
>
> The Republicans cut taxes to buy votes. Dat's da facts, Jack. Worse, yet,
> they've made it seem somehow unpatriotic to pay taxes. But Justice Oliver
> Wendell Holmes said: "I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization."
The Dems so the same thing, only they don't use tax policy. I
would suggest that things like lack of tort reform is just as injurious
to the economy.
>
> Cutting unnecessary subsidies for oil companies could raise $40 billion over
> 10 years, while a tax accounting change that would also apply mainly to oil
> companies could raise $72 billion over five years. Getting rid of a tax
> break for corporate jets would raise about $3 billion. Closing a loophole
> that allows private-equity money mangers to pay tax at about the lowest rate
> in the tax code would raise about $20 billion over 10 years.
>
I have seen the first two bandied about, but if you look at the IRS
tax expenditure figures, this doesn't even come close. Again, it is
assuming no change in the behavior of oil companies, which ain't gonna
happen.
> The Republicans are absolutely stonewalling any rational way out of this
> mess. The Democrats seek to limit the value of various write-offs for
> taxpayers making more than $500,000. That could possibly save upwards of
> $100 billion over a decade.
ALready in place. In my salad days, there were a couple of years where
I paid an additional $5000 or more in taxes (made out the check)
directly related to general deductions I couldn't take or were partially
phased out because I made too much money.
>
> Spending billions to poorly protect us from incidents that typically cost
> only in the millions when they occur is just bad business and basically just
> adds to the grief of modern life. Is there a rational person alive who
> thinks the 9/11 terrorists could pull that stunt again? Yet we lock those
> damn barn doors at a horrendous cost. Even the Republicans are on the TSA's
> case after demand we waste all that money in the first place.
You were around after 9-11. The TSA has nothing to do with protecting
us. It is a bipartisan effort to show that the government is doing
something (or more importantly the CongressCritters are finding someone
else to blame) when it happens again. You sure you spent ANYTIME in DC
(grin)
>
> While much of that spending was bi-partisan, the truth is the lies Bush told
> about WMD's led us here.
If he did, it was largely secondary to the hold-over Clintonite at
the CIA. I never did understand that, since during the Clinton
administration his CIA has already bombed the Chinese embassy in Kosovo
and the aspirin factory in Africa (yet another non-WMD).
> It is surely a "black matter" and GWB's historical legacy will forever be
> stained with the lie that may have led the US to bankruptcy. That's what
> shutting down the government means. We're out of gas.
Because of too much spending, not too little taxes. Even during the
good years, the rate of spending yr over yr went up faster than the
income. That and creative bookkeeping with SS and other areas.
Interesting stat, if you look at the average increase in spending
for the five years prior to the takeover of the Congress in '94, and
look at it for the next five years, you'll find that the average rate of
increase in spending actually declined around 1% per year.
Unfortunately, the next five years, the GOP found out how much fun it
can be spend money and soon the growth rate was back to what it was..
and then all hell broke loose.
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> > You do realize that the first tax break for corporations (the one
> > about expensing of R&D) is at 17 on the list of "tax expenditures"?
>
> Because it is 17th on the list we should ignore it? Really?
Never said that. Merely, that it is ludicrous to suggest that this
is some kind of magic pill or the reason for our ills or that there
aren't better and more lucrative things to ALSO include.
>
> > Caps on what the wealthy pay into Social Security? Bust up those sweet
> deals and
> > > you can make Social Security solvent for a long time.
>
> > Not really. The main problem with SS is that the "surplus" since the
> > getgo has been in put in non-marketable treasury securities (by the law)
> > with no designated method to pay them back. THAT is the whole problem
> > with SS solvency. And it had nothing to do with Bush tax cuts.
>
> Read what I wrote. CAPS ON WHAT THE WEALTHY PAY IN TO SS. How does that
> turn into "Bush Tax Cuts?" If you put an end to the cap on their
> contribution to SS, the insolvency problem just about goes away. Why do so
> many poor people pay X percent of their total income to SS but the rich get
> to pay less and less as they make more and more? WTF??? I smell the hand of
> the Republicans, the party of the uber-rich that uses fraud, accounting
> tricks and social fear-mongering to get people to vote for them and then
> screws them to the wall by giving break after break to their wealthy
> friends. A million dollar line of credit at Tiffany's is ALL people need to
> know about how the Republican leadership operates. They DO NOT represent
> most Americans. Anybody here have a million dollar line of credit at
> Tiffany's?
I have yet to see that study that shows it goes away. If you look at
the history, interestingly enough, the cap was put in by the Dems when
they were in power. They were afraid that if the wealthy paid a lot more
than they got back, they might start to agitate to be released from SS.
>
> > > I am just waiting for Congress to let the US default and watch as a
> certain
> > > party snatches defeat from the jaws of victory like they did the last
> time
> > > they pulled his stunt. It doesn't seem credible that people will
> continue
> > > to vote for tax breaks for people whose lifestyle would hardly change if
> > > they had to go back to the old rules. The pre-Bush tax laws kept this
> > > country solvent.
>
> > Nonsense. We had deficits all the way back to LBJ.
>
> Geez, Kurt, are you operating from some canned Republican screed? Again,
> READ WHAT I WROTE.I never said we didn't have deficits before. We just never
> had deficits this monstrous. Remember there was a time when we also had
> surpluses. With Clinton. The deficits became outrageously large after the
> Bush tax cuts and they REMAIN that way. The rich just aren't paying their
> fair share. They and their Wall St. pals have rigged the system and raided
> the pension funds of hard-working Americans across the nation in the most
> obscene transfer of wealth we've seen since the Great Depression. It's got
> to stop and that will only happen when voters realize that it was the
> Republicans that gave their rich friends and rich corporations the sweetest
> tax deals ever porked out of Congress.
Find me a way to quantify fair share and we'll talk. Otherwise it
is just blubbering. The IRS figures that show the top 20% of earners
paid 86.2% of the taxes, an increase over > 6% between 2000 and 06, by
the way. They get around 23% of the pretax income.
>
> > If you take out
> > the positive results of the SS "surplus" (remember the one that came
> > from higher taxes going into government securities with no payback
> > mechanism) there was only one actual current account surplus during
> > Clinton and that was razor thin and went away when you took out the
> > similar shenanigans in the MCare side.
>
> Nice of you to notice we did have a surplus at one time and it wasn't a
> Republican one.
>
Yep, one glorious year at the top of the dot com bubble when money
rolled in faster than even the best efforts of both parties could toss
it out.. although they tried.
> > Lots of the reason for the downturn is related to the business
> > cycle. We had many years (thanks to a very nice Fed and unprecedented
> > productivity gains) with great expansions followed by (historically)
> > short recessions and pull backs.
>
> A "nice" Fed? You mean a stupid one obsessed with good short terms numbers
> (like Wall St.) that kept handing out cheap money to fuel the real estate
> spec. bubble. Which landed us here, with a government shutdown looming, a
> fractured housing market that's still stalled and people afraid to invest in
> a stock market they perceive as crooked. By bailing out the banks with MORE
> cheap money, people can't even get a decent return on savings. So much for
> loving those Bush tax cuts for the uber rich.
So, you turned any money you made off taxes, etc. during the boom
years because the money was tainted? I doubt it. I would love it if we
were able to figure out how not to privatize the profits and socialize
the losses. That has escaped us (and others) since the Great Depression.
> Now, although people need to save, there's little incentive to do so because
> the Fed STILL makes it easier for banks to get money from them than from
> depositors. The system is badly broken and the Republicans have no plan to
> fix it other than to keep the wealth flowing from taxpayers into the hands
> of the uber-rich. Their plan is pointing the finger at the NPR and the
> poorest and most vulnerable people in the country instead of the rich and
> the corporations like GE that pay no taxes because they can lobby for all
> the sweet deals they want with their political war che$t and their hundreds
> of lobbyists and accountants.
Give me a break. We have had a negative savings rate (if you talk
about negative and less savings from one year to the next) for years and
years. To suggest that there is little reason to save because of the GOP
is to ignore that fact. The US as a whole lost the desire to save and
wanted it all and wanted it now. That was one of the things that really
confused me about the general response to everything from around 2K
forward. It was a response more attuned to rapid inflationary times than
what we saw.
>
> Statisticians can torture the data to make them say anything they want.
> Truth is what people know about their own financial situation.
You talk about torturing stats and the trot essentially a n=1 study???
For most
> people, 8 years of Bush's wild war spending has led us to a far less
> comfortable life than we had before. While some people pull down $100M
> paydays the rest of us wonder if we have enough to live to even a meager old
> age. Where, Kurt, do you think the hedge fund manager's obscene wealth
> comes from? The pension funds and IRAs of the working stiff. I've had
> enough of the BS. Tax the rich and get BACK the money stolen from the
> average citizen. Bush, for all his posturing, was never a "man of the
> people." Most commoners I know don't hang out with Saudi royalty.
This is my personal biggest problem with rants like this. Find me
a nice, objective definition of "obscene" and we'll talk. Now this boils
down to "that dude is making so much it upsets ME and something must be
done."
HeyBub
>>
>> Could be, but it's more likely the new technique of "fracking" to
>> tease
> more
>> gas out of shale.
>>
>> Whatever the case, we've got five times more gas than we thought we
>> did.
>>
>> An article yesterday touted conditions in North Dakota. Unemployment
>> is
> 3.6%
>> as the shale oil deposits are being worked around the clock. Burger
> flippers
>> are making $10-15 per hour at McDonalds. In the western part of the
>> state, workers are living in tents and growing beards. It's like the
>> California gold rush!
>
> You have read about all the wells and aquifiers that are being
> contaminated
> by fracking?
>
> <
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38334031/ns/us_news-environment/t/epa-drills-down-fracking-technique/
> >
>
Wow! Thank you for the article outlining "all the wells and aquifiers that
are being contaiminated by fracking"!
The article pointed to not a single one. Not one. The article DID mention,
several times, that there was great fear, uncertainity, and doom associated
with the process of fracking.
There WAS one mention of a well that had "methane" leakage (source unknown).
There WAS a mention of a chemical and fracking fluid spill at one site. The
article does say there are over 13,000 fracking sites in Texas alone. A
couple of regrettable incidents out of literally tens of thousands instances
is not cause for concern - or even mention.
There is a greater chance for disaster in the cooking of a lemon souffle
than in fracking an oil well.
HeyBub
>
> Of course it does. The more you make, the more volatile your
> income is, especially if it is largely from investments or other
> similar things. When the guy making $500 K loses half his income,
> then the taxes aren't paid on $250K. When a person making $40 K loses
> half his income, the taxes aren't paid on 20K (actually I'd have to
> look, but that may put them in the negative tax quintiles). The point
> being made on my part is that income taxes on the rich are NOT a
> steady source of income.
There are other reasons why taxing the rich is not a steady source of
revenue. One is the rich can move!
The Wall Street Journal had a story last year about a New Yorker who saved
$13,000 in state taxes by moving to Florida. Oh, that $13,000 was $13,000
per DAY. Rush Limbaugh moved his operation to Florida too, and just this
past week Glenn Beck announced he was moving to Texas. Just those three
people probably cost New York $10 million per year.
Stormin Mormon
liberals such as Andrew Cuomo, who is following Uncle
Obama's liberal foot steps.
I'd rather have the fracking oil wells, at least they are
good for the fracking economy. As you say, not one single
fracking example of a problem. This is just more liberal
fracking scare tactics. Continue to act so superior and so
concerned, while the fracking economy collapses around us.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:2amdnUT8iPDzdI3T...@earthlink.com...
Robert Green
<stuff snipped>
> >
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38334031/ns/us_news-environment/t/epa-drills-down-fracking-technique/
> > >
> Wow! Thank you for the article outlining "all the wells and aquifiers that
> are being contaiminated by fracking"!
>
> The article pointed to not a single one. Not one. The article DID mention,
> several times, that there was great fear, uncertainity, and doom
associated
> with the process of fracking.
>
> There WAS one mention of a well that had "methane" leakage (source
unknown).
> There WAS a mention of a chemical and fracking fluid spill at one site.
The
> article does say there are over 13,000 fracking sites in Texas alone. A
> couple of regrettable incidents out of literally tens of thousands
instances
> is not cause for concern - or even mention.
>
> There is a greater chance for disaster in the cooking of a lemon souffle
> than in fracking an oil well.
You just DEMAND that I make an idiot out of you, don't you? Jeez, have you
taken a professional idiot course in the last month? You're nucking futz.
I guess I have to demonstrate why even why your Gov. Perry is forcing the
frackers to reveal what nasty chemicals they use to frack that gets into the
water processing chain. Do you enjoy giving Texans a bad name? Since
you're obviously living down a frack hole with no access to current events I
will once again have to "edumacate" you. <sigh> It's getting to be a full
time job as your lack of knowledge appears boundless. Are you sure that
clot didn't go to your brain? Sometimes your idiocy floors me. It really,
really does:
Here we go:
<<PAVILLION, Wyo. - A glass of water drawn from John Fenton's underground
well outside his rural log home built against a rocky ridge looks and tastes
as clear and refreshing as any bottled water.
But Fenton's water contains traces of arsenic, barium, cobalt, copper and
other compounds identified in water tests that cannot be seen, smelled or
tasted.
"It definitely makes you think every time you turn the faucet on," said
Fenton, who farms hay on about 200 acres outside his home, located about 130
miles west of Casper.
He and other residents outside this small rural, farming community blame
their water woes - and what they perceive to be the unusual health problems
in their midst - on hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a common technique
used in drilling new oil and gas wells.">>
================================================================
http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006
A Colossal Fracking Mess
The dirty truth behind the new natural gas.
By Christopher Bateman
WEB EXCLUSIVE June 21, 2010
Stretching some 400 miles, the Delaware is one of the cleanest free-flowing
rivers in the United States, home to some of the best fly-fishing in the
country. More than 15 million people, including residents of New York City
and Philadelphia, get their water from its pristine watershed. To regard its
unspoiled beauty on a spring morning, you might be led to believe that the
river is safely off limits from the destructive effects of
industrialization. Unfortunately, you'd be mistaken. The Delaware is now the
most endangered river in the country, according to the conservation group
American Rivers.
The real shock that Dimock has undergone, however, is in the aquifer that
residents rely on for their fresh water. Dimock is now known as the place
where, over the past two years, people's water started turning brown and
making them sick, one woman's water well spontaneously combusted, and horses
and pets mysteriously began to lose their hair. . . Drilling operations near
their property commenced in August 2008. Trees were cleared and the ground
leveled to make room for a four-acre drilling site less than 1,000 feet away
from their land. The Sautners could feel the earth beneath their home shake
whenever the well was fracked. . . .Within a month, their water had turned
brown. It was so corrosive that it scarred dishes in their dishwasher and
stained their laundry. They complained to Cabot, which eventually installed
a water-filtration system in the basement of their home. It seemed to solve
the problem, but when the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection came to do further tests, it found that the Sautners' water still
contained high levels of methane. More ad hoc pumps and filtration systems
were installed. While the Sautners did not drink the water at this point,
they continued to use it for other purposes for a full year . . . "It was so
bad sometimes that my daughter would be in the shower in the morning, and
she'd have to get out of the shower and lay on the floor" because of the
dizzying effect the chemicals in the water had on her, recalls Craig
Sautner, who has worked as a cable splicer for Frontier Communications his
whole life. She didn't speak up about it for a while, because she wondered
whether she was imagining the problem. But she wasn't the only one in the
family suffering. "My son had sores up and down his legs from the water,"
================================================================
BUT, WAIT HEYBUB, THERE'S MUCH MUCH MORE!!!!! AND MORE . . .
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/09/study-links-flammable-gas-in-water-and-nearby-drilling/
May 9, 2011, 7:56 pm
Study Links Flammable Gas in Water and Nearby Drilling
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Researchers from Duke University say they have found a clear link between
gas drilling in Pennsylvania and Upstate New York and high levels of
flammable methane in drinking water - a situation that became a prominent
talking point in the drilling debate after flaming faucets were featured in
the documentary "Gasland."
The summary of their paper, published today in the Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, says it all:
In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and Utica shale formations of
northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we document systematic
evidence for methane contamination of drinking water associated with
shale-gas extraction.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108
Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and
hydraulic fracturing
1.. Stephen G. Osborna,
2.. Avner Vengoshb,
3.. Nathaniel R. Warnerb, and
4.. Robert B. Jacksona,b,c,1
1.. aCenter on Global Change, Nicholas School of the Environment,
2.. bDivision of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the
Environment, and
3.. cBiology Department, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708
1.. Edited* by William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem
Studies, Millbrook, NY, and approved April 14, 2011 (received for review
January 13, 2011)
Abstract
Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are dramatically
increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the Marcellus and
Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and upstate New York, we
document systematic evidence for methane contamination of drinking water
associated with shale-gas extraction. In active gas-extraction areas (one or
more gas wells within 1 km), average and maximum methane concentrations in
drinking-water wells increased with proximity to the nearest gas well and
were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 (n = 26), a potential explosion hazard; in
contrast, dissolved methane samples in neighboring nonextraction sites (no
gas wells within 1 km) within similar geologic formations and hydrogeologic
regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L-1 (P < 0.05; n = 34).
===============================================================
http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking
The group tested 68 drinking water wells in the Marcellus and Utica shale
drilling areas in northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York State.
Sixty of those wells were tested for dissolved gas. While most of the wells
had some methane, the water samples taken closest to the gas wells had on
average 17 times the levels detected in wells further from active drilling.
The group defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or about
six tenths of a mile, from a gas well.
The average concentration of the methane detected in the water wells near
drilling sites fell squarely within a range that the U.S. Department of
Interior says is dangerous and requires urgent "hazard mitigation" action,
according to the study.
================================================================
The only reason that more information has not been available is because our
dear old warmongering friends Halliburton and Dick Cheney weasled an
exception to the clean water act out of the EPA:
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july032010/fracking-usa-rb.php
Clean Water Underground? Halliburton says: 'Fugetaboutit!'
America's Water Supplies Get Freaking Fracked
. . .Halliburton and other energy resource firms were given exemptions from
the prescriptions of the Safe Drinking Water Act back in 2005. Their energy
bill goal was to morph the bastard child from Hell of VP Dick Cheney and his
now infamously stealthy "Energy Taskforce" into their pet lapdog: Fracking.
Or should we call it "task farce?" Now demeaned by many as "The Halliburton
Loophole," Cheney personally assured exemption for hydraulic fracturing in
the 2005 Energy Policy Act. . .
=============================================================
If you want, I'll find tons more, especially articles about how frack water
is run into public sewer systems that are not designed for nor cannot remove
the pollutants that are found in frack water. Fracking began large scale
operations without any of the appropriate testing to insure that it's safe.
Don't count on all the "new gas" being accessible as it becomes more and
more likely that states and localities will ban frackers from operating. NY
state has already decided to start cutting off the fracker's water supply by
requiring special permits. All things you can learn if you read and not
pull "facts" OOYA.
All I can hope is that you end up with a fracking operation in your
backyard. You'll then be like the liberal who turns into a conservative
after being mugged.
--
Bobby G.
Stormin Mormon
class! But, that's typical for liberals.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:to-dna8cXLTmdo3T...@earthlink.com...
Robert Green
news:iuqrpi$dv0$1...@dont-email.me...
> I live in the "wary NY state" which is being destroyed by
> liberals such as Andrew Cuomo, who is following Uncle
> Obama's liberal foot steps.
No, it could be destroyed by unregulated fracking, which Cuomo is finally
being forced by the evidence to slow down and perhaps stop dead in its
tracks. It was nearly destroyed, just like most other states, by
under-regulated Wall St. which sold toxic securities with AAA ratings,
robbing the pension funds of millions of Americans. Both parties helped
bring that disaster about, but you've got Republican's Alzheimer's and only
remember the bad things the Democrats do.
http://billionaires.forbes.com/article/04idaaq894caj?q=Wells+Fargo
<<Bank of America and its Countrywide unit will pay $8.5bn to settle claims
that lenders sold poor quality mortgage-backed securities that went sour
when the housing market collapsed>>
Those frauds (the total far exceeded the settlement) occurred before Obama
was President. I am sure you'll figure out a way to blame him, though.
> I'd rather have the fracking oil wells, at least they are
> good for the fracking economy.
You'll sing a different tune if they start fracking in your neighborhood.
In upstate New York that could happen very soon now if Cuomo is unable to
stop them. You're sitting on one of the largest shale oil deposits in the
country, the Utica Shale. I can think of no more poetic justice that you
getting a fracking well in your neighborhood, poisoning your water supply.
Who will you blame then? The liberals who are trying to protect your
health? Of this we can be certain.
>As you say, not one single fracking example of a problem.
In that one particular article. I took for granted HeyBub was a little
better informed on current events so I didn't bombard him with sites. I
corrected both errors. I assumed even my dead grandmother has heard of the
problems of methane gas poisoning wells. I wouldn't make that mistake with
you based on your "liberals ruined my life" and other amusing fact-free
posts although I do welcome the chance to correct your badly misinformed
impression of fracking. Obviously you don't read much so try a peer
reviewed study:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/05/02/1100682108
<<:Directional drilling and hydraulic-fracturing technologies are
dramatically increasing natural-gas extraction. In aquifers overlying the
Marcellus and Utica shale formations of northeastern Pennsylvania and
upstate New York, we document systematic evidence for methane contamination
of drinking water associated with shale-gas extraction. In active
gas-extraction areas (one or more gas wells within 1 km), average and
maximum methane concentrations in drinking-water wells increased with
proximity to the nearest gas well and were 19.2 and 64 mg CH4 L-1 (n = 26),
a potential explosion hazard; in contrast, dissolved methane samples in
neighboring nonextraction sites (no gas wells within 1 km) within similar
geologic formations and hydrogeologic regimes averaged only 1.1 mg L-1 (P <
0.05; n = 34).>>
Do you need me to explain that to you? It might be too technical for a
knee-jerk anti-liberal to comprehend.
"Polluted water levels rising to an explosion hazard." No, that's no
problem. Sure it isn't. Only in your wildest Obama/liberal hating wet
dreams.
> This is just more liberal fracking scare tactics. Continue to act so
superior and so
> concerned, while the fracking economy collapses around us.
Yeow. You have a real chip on your shoulder. Who caused the economy to
collapse? CDO's and unregulated Wall St. running wild. I'll bet you're
willing to blame it all on the liberals, CRA and minority ownership of
houses, which GWB sought to increase by 5 miillion. Damn those liberal
Republicans.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/housing/2004-01-20-fha_x.htm
"Bush has a goal of 5.5 million new minority homeowners this decade."
Based on what you've written here over the years we can assume facts never
get in the way of your opinions which are mostly very, very far from
reality.
--
Bobby G.
HeyBub
## "Here we go" after a paragraph of ad hominem attacks.
>
> <
> http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_dd0755ae-9b64-11de-8eef-001cc4c002e0.html
> >
>
> <<PAVILLION, Wyo. - A glass of water drawn from John Fenton's
> underground
> well outside his rural log home built against a rocky ridge looks and
> tastes
> as clear and refreshing as any bottled water.
> But Fenton's water contains traces of arsenic, barium, cobalt, copper
> and
> other compounds identified in water tests that cannot be seen,
> smelled or
> tasted.
>
>
> "It definitely makes you think every time you turn the faucet on,"
> said
> Fenton, who farms hay on about 200 acres outside his home, located
> about 130
> miles west of Casper.
>
>
> He and other residents outside this small rural, farming community
> blame
> their water woes - and what they perceive to be the unusual health
> problems
> in their midst - on hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a common
> technique
> used in drilling new oil and gas wells.">>
## He "blames" his water problem on fracking. Neither he nor the article
offers one scintilla of proof. "Well, what else could it be?" might be the
retort, but ignorance is not proof.
## Again, a symptom blamed on fracking with no showing of proof. As much
causality is demonstrated here as crop circles being created by space
aliens.
## Finally, a study with some meat on it. Thanks for the pointer.
>
> ===============================================================
>
> http://www.propublica.org/article/scientific-study-links-flammable-drinking-water-to-fracking
>
> The group tested 68 drinking water wells in the Marcellus and Utica
> shale
> drilling areas in northeastern Pennsylvania and southern New York
> State.
> Sixty of those wells were tested for dissolved gas. While most of the
> wells
> had some methane, the water samples taken closest to the gas wells
> had on
> average 17 times the levels detected in wells further from active
> drilling.
> The group defined an active drilling area as within one kilometer, or
> about
> six tenths of a mile, from a gas well.
> The average concentration of the methane detected in the water wells
> near
> drilling sites fell squarely within a range that the U.S. Department
> of
> Interior says is dangerous and requires urgent "hazard mitigation"
> action,
> according to the study.
>
## So what? It's possible, isn't it, that these wells showing high levels of
methane have ALWAYS had large concentrations of methane.
>
> All I can hope is that you end up with a fracking operation in your
> backyard. You'll then be like the liberal who turns into a
> conservative
> after being mugged.
Again, you wish me, and presumably all those with whom you disagree, all
manner of befalling evil. I don't hate you because you're misguided; I don't
want your children to die of the pox because you disagree with me.
Let's agree to this: I won't attempt to persuade you by yelling, profanity,
or insults and you don't try to persuade me by logic and rationale. You
stick to the "it's for the children" arguments and I'll continue with
cost/benefit analysis. That way we can each live in our own world.
Don Klipstein
>Robert Green wrote:
<SNIP to point of water made flammable/explosive by methane>
<SNIP from here>
Robert Green is citing a study appearing here to claim 19.2 average 64
max milligrams of methane per liter of water in gas extraction areas, and
1.1 milligrams per liter average elsewhere.
Where is that 64 coming from? At temperature most favorable for
dissolving methane in water, only 40 milligrams can dissolve in a kilogram
(or a liter) of water, with the water subject to normal atmospheric
pressure.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
And why should drinking-well water from outside gas drilling areas
even have methane content of 2.75% of maximum available from a 100%
methane atmosphere at atmospheric pressure and most-methane-dissolving
water temperature?
I suspect there are some bad numbers or bad measurements here!
Furthermore, how bad is water at 40 milligrams of methane per liter,
approx. 155 milligrams per gallon? That's a little less than 1/16 of a
gallon of methane in gas form in a gallon of water.
How many explosions of any size from methane in water have been reported
by the media? My guess is ZERO. Has anyone produced any flammable water?
As much as TV news outlets would like that, I have yet to hear of it.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@donklipstein.com)
HeyBub
> <SNIP from here>
>
> Robert Green is citing a study appearing here to claim 19.2 average
> 64 max milligrams of methane per liter of water in gas extraction
> areas, and
> 1.1 milligrams per liter average elsewhere.
>
> Where is that 64 coming from? At temperature most favorable for
> dissolving methane in water, only 40 milligrams can dissolve in a
> kilogram (or a liter) of water, with the water subject to normal
> atmospheric pressure.
>
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gases-solubility-water-d_1148.html
>
> And why should drinking-well water from outside gas drilling areas
> even have methane content of 2.75% of maximum available from a 100%
> methane atmosphere at atmospheric pressure and most-methane-dissolving
> water temperature?
>
> I suspect there are some bad numbers or bad measurements here!
>
> Furthermore, how bad is water at 40 milligrams of methane per liter,
> approx. 155 milligrams per gallon? That's a little less than 1/16 of
> a gallon of methane in gas form in a gallon of water.
>
> How many explosions of any size from methane in water have been
> reported by the media? My guess is ZERO. Has anyone produced any
> flammable water? As much as TV news outlets would like that, I have
> yet to hear of it.
There's the Chicken Little syndrome. Some years back, somebody decided to
test the mercury concentration in fish from Chesapeake Bay. I forget the
number, but they claimed it was quite large, everybody who ate the fish
would surely die, and there was nothing for it but to (I forget what, but
something Draconian like shutting down all the coal-fired power plants for a
hundred miles).
Then some "emperor has no clothes" busybody tested a fish from the
Smithsonian that had been caught in the bay some hundred years back. That
Smithsonian fish had twice the mercury level of the harbinger of doom fish.
'Course the hundred year-old fish and the recent fish could have sufficient
mercury to rot the brains of everybody who ate them. Remember, the
congressional restaurants serve Chesapeake Bay fish.
That connection may explain a lot.
Mike
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
Is there a actual cite for this?
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:GsOdnW-5mMzOzI3T...@earthlink.com...
> Could be, but it's more likely the new technique of "fracking" to tease
> more gas out of shale.
There is nothing new about that process, when I wore a much younger man's
clothes I saw it done up close while working in the oil/gas drilling
business. Helped load some guys on medevac choppers when it went wrong one
day too.
Our good friends in the Republican Party passed a law shielding the oil/gas
companies from having to reveal the stew of chemicals they use in fracking�
so now when a community's water supply tests toxic after drilling in their
area and all their water has to come in by tanker truck the drillers can
point to the law and shrug.
> Whatever the case, we've got five times more gas than we thought we did.
Unless we don't because much of the supposed increase is an accounting
trick, or unless we can only get that gas out of the ground by poisoning the
aquifer.
> An article yesterday touted conditions in North Dakota. Unemployment is
> 3.6% as the shale oil deposits are being worked around the clock. Burger
> flippers are making $10-15 per hour at McDonalds. In the western part of
> the state, workers are living in tents and growing beards. It's like the
> California gold rush!
California is still dealing with the after effects of the hydraulic mining
methods used in the pursuit of gold a century ago including a haphazard
system of engineered rivers and levees that are widely recognized as a
ticking bomb that could gut the state's economy if an earthquake broke
enough levees and allowed San Francisco Bay to back up into the delta (where
LA gets much of its water). But stuff like that doesn't matter because all
that counts is somebody is making money today, that we're leaving future
generations with a nasty bill to pay is just not our problem, right? So
drill baby drill, and to hell with the consequences.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:2amdnUT8iPDzdI3T...@earthlink.com...
> There is a greater chance for disaster in the cooking of a lemon souffle
> than in fracking an oil well.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fracking
Dangers of Fracking Noted around the Country
Catskill Mountainkeeper has noted that "A number of these [hydrofracking]
fluids qualify as hazardous materials and carcinogens, and are toxic enough
to contaminate groundwater resources. There are cases in the U.S. where
hydraulic fracturing is the suspected source of impaired or polluted
drinking water. In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia
and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded by people who have gas wells near
their homes. They have reported changes in water quality or quantity
following fracturing operations." [25] Significant harms have also been
exposed in Pennsylvania, as noted below.
Pennsylvania
On November 9, 2009, Reuters reported that the owner of 480 acres of land in
southwest Pennsylvania claimed Atlas Energy Inc. ruined his land with toxic
chemicals used in or released there by hydraulic fracturing, and he also
claimed to find seven potentially carcinogenic chemicals above permissible
levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. He performed tests
on his well water a year before drilling began and said the water conditions
were "perfect." After the drilling began, water tests found arsenic at 2,600
times acceptable levels, benzene at 44 times above limits and naphthalene
five times the federal standard. He has decided to sue Atlas Energy Inc. for
negligence and is seeking an injunction against further drilling, and
unspecified financial damages. Jay Hammond, general counsel for Atlas, said
Zimmermann's claims are "completely erroneous" and said Atlas will
"vigorously" defend itself in court and declined further comment.[26]
Later that month on November 20, 2009, Reuters reported that residents of
Dimock sued Cabot Oil & Gas Corp claiming the company's natural-gas drilling
had contaminated their water wells with toxic chemicals, caused sickness and
reduced their property values. The complaint says residents have suffered
neurological, gastrointestinal and dermatological symptoms from exposure to
tainted water. They also say they have had blood test results consistent
with exposure to heavy metals. The lawsuit accuses Cabot of negligence and
says it has failed to restore residential water supplies disrupted by gas
drilling.[27] Contaminated water from methane gas drilling operations, such
as in Dimock, Pennsylvania, is often ten times more toxic than water
produced from petroleum production, and can contain high concentrations of
salts, acids, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, radioactive
materials," and other chemicals. [28]
Colorado
Oil and gas drilling in Colorado, predominantly in western Colorado, has
raised health concerns from residents who believe the industry is the root
cause of their illnesses or that is has exacerbated disease.
Chris Mobaldi, who lived in Rifle, Colorado, believes her neurological
system was damaged by drinking water that may have been contaminated by
drilling fluids from wells around her home. She had two tumors removed from
her pituitary gland and endured excruciating pain. [29]
Odor complaints and air pollution concerns are also on the rise in Garfield
County, on the western slope, where longtime residents often endure hazy
skies in the Colorado River valley. Many believe the gas industry is
responsible. Carol and Orlyn Bell noticed a "terrible" smell when they
neared their Dry Hollow ranch, south of Silt, Colorado. "It was the
strongest odor we've smelled in the last four years," Carol Bell said. The
Bells said the odor came from nearby gas wells and production facilities,
something they've seen surround their 110-acre ranch within the span of four
years. [30] From September to December, 2005, the Colorado Oil and Gas
Commission documented ten complaints from eight separate households related
to odors emanating from wells being drilled and completed by the Barrett
Corporation [31]
Louisiana
In the April 30, 2009 [Pro Publica]]'s Abrahm Lustgarten wrote about a story
he dug up from Louisiana's Shreveport Times. The story revealed that 16
cattle mysteriously and abruptly dropped dead in a "northwestern Louisiana
field after apparently drinking from a mysterious fluid adjacent to a
natural gas drilling rig, according to Louisiana's Department of
Environmental Quality. At least one worker told the newspaper that the
fluids . . . were used for . . . hydraulic fracturing.[32]
Texas
In late 2007, three families near Grandview, Texas noticed changes in their
well water just after a natural gas well within a couple of hundred yards of
their properties was hydraulically fractured. Within days, five goats and a
llama had died. All three families noticed strong sulfur smells in their
water, making it unusable. At first their water ran dry, and then the water
returned with extremely high pressure, blowing out pipes. Showering caused
skin irritation. The Railroad Commission of Texas acknowledged that testing
of well water found toluene and other toxic contaminants.[33]
Wyoming
Reuters also reports that "the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found 14
"contaminants of concern" in 11 private wells in the central Wyoming farming
community of Pavillion, an area with about 250 gas wells.[34]
DGDevin
"Mike" wrote in message
news:4e12449d$0$24715$ec3e...@unlimited.usenetmonster.com...
> Is there a actual cite for this?
HeyBub isn't big on documentation, it tends to interfere in his willingness
to repeat urban myths and internet fables as if they were gospel.
Don Klipstein
At this point, I greatly question this. What good for haydraulic
fracturing is served by arsenic, by benzene (a volatile flammable liquid),
or by naphthalene (a crystalline solid benzene relative that some
mothballs are made of)?
Are you accusing the frackers of unnecessarily polluting with chemicals
that sound to me useless for hydraulic fracturing?
Wikipedia says:
" The fluid injected into the rock can be water, gels, foams, and
compressed gases, including nitrogen, carbon dioxide and air. Various
types of proppant are used, including sand, resin-coated sand, and man-made
ceramics, depending on the type of permeability or grain strength needed.
Sand containing naturally radioactive minerals is sometimes used so that
the fracture trace along the wellbore can be measured. The injected fluid
mixture is approximately 99 percent water, with 1 percent proppant."
Why use anything toxic?
I agree with laws mandating disclosure of what is used. I doubt that
would significantly hinder fracking.
Even though the Wiki article on "hydraulic fracturing" has a list of
chemicals said to be used at least sometimes in the fluid - such as
acetone, mild organic acids, and several specific hydrocarbons appearing
to me to likely exist in diesel oil and similar fuel oils.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
wrote:
Perhaps it's a shield against frivolous lawsuits stemming from "trace"
compounds found in water, whether those compounds are naturally occurring or
not. ...like the brouhaha over arsenic a few years ago.
HeyBub
No, this was long before the internet. But I did find one article:
http://www.al.com/specialreport/mobileregister/index.ssf?merc22.html
"Spiller, who oversees the safety of the nation's seafood supply, cited a
study he said involved mercury testing of 100-year-old fish samples from the
Smithsonian. The mercury levels in those fish, he said, were no lower than
mercury found in samples of modern fish."
The article goes on to quote others claiming the study to which Spiller
refers is flawed, the data problematic, that other studies contradict
Spiller's claims, and concludes that Spiller may have eaten too much fish
from Chesapeake Bay.
HeyBub
Money quotes:
Example #1: "hydraulic fracturing is the SUSPECTED source..."
Example #2: "...owner of 480 acres ... CLAIMED Atlas Energy Inc. ruined his
land..."
Example #3: "... residents who BELIEVE the industry is the root cause of
their illnesses..."
Example #4: "...16 cattle mysteriously... dropped dead in a "northwestern
Louisiana field after APPARENTLY drinking from a mysterious fluid..."
Example #5: There may be something to this report, or at least an
unbelievably rare coincidence.
Example #6: "EPA found 14 "contaminants of concern" in 11 private wells..."
(Inference being gas wells were the source)
So, in the six references you diligently dug out, we have NONE with
unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the part of the oil/gas company,
chemical tests, or any other form of physical evidence. You may point to #6
where the EPA found contaminants, but we do not know when the contaminants
were introduced. They could have been in place for the last fifty years. All
we can tell from the study is that contaminants exist now.
Stormin Mormon
reading.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.
ALERT FROM JEWS FOR THE PRESERVATION OF FIREARMS OWNERSHIP
America's Aggressive Civil Rights Organization
July 1st, 2011
JPFO Alert: The Insidious semantics of "gun control"
"Gun Control" advocates fall into only two categories: the
Liars
and the Ignorant. There is no third category.
The Liars invent the lies. The Ignorant believe the lies and
repeat
them.
Read more here .....
http://jpfo.org/kirby/kirby-semantics-of-gun-control.htm
HTML for this alert -
http://jpfo.org/alerts2011/alert20110701.htm
Yours in Freedom, The Liberty Crew at JPFO
Protecting you by creating solutions to destroy "gun
control"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Find other JPFO folks -
http://jpfo.org/alerts2011/alert20110519.htm
JPFO's new "Triple Play" DVD -
http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=110
JPFO Freedom Music - enjoy the "I Will Live Free" CD - sale
price
$17.76 - http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=71
Be sure you have seen the JPFO Genocide Chart -
http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart
The JPFO Store - http://shop.jpfo.org/cart.php - films,
books and
more. (JPFO Order Line - 800-869-1884)
Box 270143, Hartford ,WI 53027, USA
DGDevin
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj14pg...@manx.misty.com...
> At this point, I greatly question this. What good for haydraulic
> fracturing is served by arsenic, by benzene (a volatile flammable liquid),
> or by naphthalene (a crystalline solid benzene relative that some
> mothballs are made of)?
> Are you accusing the frackers of unnecessarily polluting with chemicals
> that sound to me useless for hydraulic fracturing?
I'm not an authority on fracking and I assume you aren't either. So neither
of us knows if those chemicals are useless or not in this process. And
since Congress passed a law allowing the companies doing this work to keep
their formulas secret, we have no idea what they are using. But it is
curious that people had clean water before fracking was done in their area
later had their water tested and found high levels of these chemicals, isn't
it.
I agree with you, the formulas used should not be immune to disclosure
because of the alleged impact on water quality. If these companies are not
pumping these chemicals into the ground then that would help to clear them
of these accusations. But given that Republicans have control of the House
I'd say the odds of the law being changed are slim to none.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:bqGdnQaXyahEbY_T...@earthlink.com...
> So, in the six references you diligently dug out
One web search, took a few minutes. You should try it some time.
> we have NONE with unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the part of
> the oil/gas company,
LOL, even if they end up settling out of court and paying millions in
compensation they'll insist on the proverbial no admission of wrongdoing,
SOP with corporations caught doing something they aren't supposed to do.
Goldman Sachs just repeated that old formula, paid umpteen millions in fines
(a fraction of their profits on the illegal activity) but without admitting
they did anything wrong.
> chemical tests, or any other form of physical evidence.
Obviously the labs that found and documented the presence of chemicals at
levels vastly above govt. standards found physical evidence.
> You may point to #6 where the EPA found contaminants, but we do not know
> when the contaminants were introduced. They could have been in place for
> the last fifty years. All we can tell from the study is that contaminants
> exist now.
And since the companies doing the fracking are allowed to keep their
formulas secret, it will be kind of tough to prove they did it, won't it.
If we could arrange for water from one of those areas where their drinking
water now has to be brought in by tanker trucks to be piped into your home,
would you use it?
Kurt Ullman
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> "Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj14pg...@manx.misty.com...
>
> > At this point, I greatly question this. What good for haydraulic
> > fracturing is served by arsenic, by benzene (a volatile flammable liquid),
> > or by naphthalene (a crystalline solid benzene relative that some
> > mothballs are made of)?
>
> > Are you accusing the frackers of unnecessarily polluting with chemicals
> > that sound to me useless for hydraulic fracturing?
>
> I'm not an authority on fracking and I assume you aren't either. So neither
> of us knows if those chemicals are useless or not in this process. And
> since Congress passed a law allowing the companies doing this work to keep
> their formulas secret, we have no idea what they are using. But it is
> curious that people had clean water before fracking was done in their area
> later had their water tested and found high levels of these chemicals, isn't
> it.
>
Did they test for these chemicals before? Post hoc ergo proctor hoc?
HeyBub
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:bqGdnQaXyahEbY_T...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>> So, in the six references you diligently dug out
>
> One web search, took a few minutes. You should try it some time.
>
>> we have NONE with unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the
>> part of the oil/gas company,
>
> LOL, even if they end up settling out of court and paying millions in
> compensation they'll insist on the proverbial no admission of
> wrongdoing, SOP with corporations caught doing something they aren't
> supposed to do. Goldman Sachs just repeated that old formula, paid
> umpteen millions in fines (a fraction of their profits on the illegal
> activity) but without admitting they did anything wrong.
I said "such as." Sometimes the culprit admits things didn't go as planned.
For example, the recent Department of Justice mea culpa on the "Fast &
Furious" gun-running program.
No, wait. Never mind.
>
>> chemical tests, or any other form of physical evidence.
>
> Obviously the labs that found and documented the presence of
> chemicals at levels vastly above govt. standards found physical
> evidence.
>> You may point to #6 where the EPA found contaminants, but we do not
>> know when the contaminants were introduced. They could have been in
>> place for the last fifty years. All we can tell from the study is
>> that contaminants exist now.
>
> And since the companies doing the fracking are allowed to keep their
> formulas secret, it will be kind of tough to prove they did it, won't
> it.
Yep. Don't forget, money is involved. The oil companies want to keep their
process confidential so their competitors remain at a disadvantage. The
homeowners see a big payday if they can get a sympathetic jury. But when the
homeowners sue, discovery will flush out (no pun intended) the chemicals
used.
>
> If we could arrange for water from one of those areas where their
> drinking water now has to be brought in by tanker trucks to be piped
> into your home, would you use it?
No, I wouldn't. But I wouldn't buy property in an area where all sorts of
nastiness comes out of my well either. Presumably, the homeowner's don't
care for if they did, they would have tested the water before they moved in
and we'd have something to compare against. As it is, if they grow extra
toes, they didn't do their due diligence in the first place.
HeyBub
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:bqGdnQaXyahEbY_T...@earthlink.com...
>
>
>> So, in the six references you diligently dug out
>
> One web search, took a few minutes. You should try it some time.
>
>> we have NONE with unequivocal proof, such as an admission on the
>> part of the oil/gas company,
>
If the technique you employ is so trivial, find us a reference showing
unequivocal, or at least compelling, proof that fracking poses a threat to
the water supply.
I'm willing to be persuaded, but it's got to be substantially more than
"something terrible, via an unknown method, might happen."
Stormin Mormon
have the right loads, and the right shot placement. The FMJ
9 MM is less than adequate.
HeyBub
> I think the .38 special is a fine defensive round, if you
> have the right loads, and the right shot placement. The FMJ
> 9 MM is less than adequate.
To fire a .38 Special you have to use a revolver. While simpler to operate
than an automatic, it IS more difficult for most ladies. And you only have
six opportunities to wreak havoc.
With an automatic, you can have up to 17 or so little friends to punch holes
in the object of your affection, er, attention. I even have a couple of
30-round magazines for my 9mm Glocks.
I strongly agree with your dismissal of FMJ (Full Metal Jacket) ammunition
(with one exception). Consider instead Glazer Safety (giggle) Rounds. These
bullets are frangible, meaning they disintegrate when they hit something,
rather than passing through the first thing the hit, four layers of
sheetrock, two exterior walls, and killing the baby slumbering peacefully in
its crib next door.
The one exception is wintertime in extreme climes where the do-bad may be
wearing everything he owns topped by a leather jacket. For such
eventualities, an otherwise over-penetrating round is indicated. In the
winter, I reload my carry piece with alternating Glazers and FMJs.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:iKadnSAYMsDyRYnT...@earthlink.com...
> I'm willing to be persuaded, but it's got to be substantially more than
> "something terrible, via an unknown method, might happen."
If fracking doesn't represent a hazard to water supplies, why did Texas pass
a law requiring disclosure of chemicals used in fracking?
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:QsCdndbS7-5MV4jT...@earthlink.com...
> To fire a .38 Special you have to use a revolver.
There have been several semi-autos that used the .38 Special cartridge,
however they were designed for target shooting. I once passed on a .38 AMU
(Amry Marksmanship Unit) 1911 because the magazines were scarce and
expensive.
> While simpler to operate than an automatic, it IS more difficult for most
> ladies.
I've found it easier in many cases to teach someone to use a semi-auto than
a revolver, for some reason many folks have a high fumble-factor when trying
to load a revolver (the FBI eventually came to a similar conclusion).
> And you only have six opportunities to wreak havoc.
There are seven and eight shot revolvers on the market, serious cartridges
too, like .357.
> I even have a couple of 30-round magazines for my 9mm Glocks.
Look into .40 S&W, way more stopping power in a package the same size. One
of those full of say Federal Hydroshocks takes care of your concerns about
heavy winter clothing without penetrating walls.
DGDevin
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
news:tuWdneKY_JMnX4nT...@earthlink.com...
> Did they test for these chemicals before? Post hoc ergo proctor hoc?
Apparently at least some did according to the article I quoted. And there
is the issue that if someone has lived on a farm for years or decades
without trouble with their water and suddenly after fracking in their area
their water is unusable that would seem to point to the fracking as the
source of the problem. Even Texas now requires companies to disclose their
fracking formulas (with a predictable proprietary loophole) so concerns over
fracking are not confined to tree-hugging eco-loonies.
HeyBub
>
> Apparently at least some did according to the article I quoted. And
> there is the issue that if someone has lived on a farm for years or
> decades without trouble with their water and suddenly after fracking
> in their area their water is unusable that would seem to point to the
> fracking as the source of the problem. Even Texas now requires
> companies to disclose their fracking formulas (with a predictable
> proprietary loophole) so concerns over fracking are not confined to
> tree-hugging eco-loonies.
Concerns could be confined, however, to tree-hugging eco-loonies who vote
and these concerns could best be characterized by high decibels.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:0PqdnZR7-dIzSonT...@earthlink.com...
> I said "such as." Sometimes the culprit admits things didn't go as
> planned.
Or they go exactly as planned, except for the part about getting caught.
> For example, the recent Department of Justice mea culpa on the "Fast &
> Furious" gun-running program.
The Govt. Does It Too is not much of an excuse for corporate misbehavior.
> Yep. Don't forget, money is involved.
Money is always involved, it seems to be the one and only factor that
corporations care about.
> The oil companies want to keep their process confidential so their
> competitors remain at a disadvantage.
An alternative explanation is they don't want to get caught.
> The homeowners see a big payday if they can get a sympathetic jury.
A farmer who has spent his life building something to pass onto his children
is not looking for a big payday, he's looking for justice because a soulless
corporation destroyed the value of his life's work.
>> If we could arrange for water from one of those areas where their
>> drinking water now has to be brought in by tanker trucks to be piped
>> into your home, would you use it?
> No, I wouldn't. But I wouldn't buy property in an area where all sorts of
> nastiness comes out of my well either. Presumably, the homeowner's don't
> care for if they did, they would have tested the water before they moved
> in and we'd have something to compare against. As it is, if they grow
> extra toes, they didn't do their due diligence in the first place.
It seems to have escaped your eagle eye that the nastiness wasn't coming
from their wells until after the fracking, in at least one case the land
owner has water testing before and after the fracking. Or do you suppose
that a company pays the cost of trucking in water for an entire community
without making an effort to demonstrate that the local water was always
contaminated?
HeyBub
I don't know. I can guess, though I don't like to do that. Your best bet is
to ask a member of the Texas legislature.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:haSdncA8pMV5j4vT...@earthlink.com...
>> Even Texas now requires
>> companies to disclose their fracking formulas (with a predictable
>> proprietary loophole) so concerns over fracking are not confined to
>> tree-hugging eco-loonies.
> Concerns could be confined, however, to tree-hugging eco-loonies who vote
> and these concerns could best be characterized by high decibels.
Can I get an English translation on that one?
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:m-SdnaR6z_VHjovT...@earthlink.com...
>> If fracking doesn't represent a hazard to water supplies, why did
>> Texas pass a law requiring disclosure of chemicals used in fracking?
> I don't know. I can guess, though I don't like to do that.
LOL, yeah, your strict adherence to heavily documented facts and figures is
a byword around here.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
>Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> I think the .38 special is a fine defensive round, if you
>> have the right loads, and the right shot placement. The FMJ
>> 9 MM is less than adequate.
>
>To fire a .38 Special you have to use a revolver. While simpler to operate
>than an automatic, it IS more difficult for most ladies. And you only have
>six opportunities to wreak havoc.
Revolvers actually make great purse guns. They're "safer" than autos and more
compact. A hammerless revolver is perfect for such an application. My 6" 686
isn't, however. ;-) Either will make a perp piss pants.
>With an automatic, you can have up to 17 or so little friends to punch holes
>in the object of your affection, er, attention. I even have a couple of
>30-round magazines for my 9mm Glocks.
I have a 32-round magazine for my Beretta but it's hardly something I'd carry
around for protection. A bit on the difficult side to conceal, too.
Don Klipstein
>
>
>"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
>news:tuWdneKY_JMnX4nT...@earthlink.com...
>
>> Did they test for these chemicals before? Post hoc ergo proctor hoc?
>
>Apparently at least some did according to the article I quoted. And
>there is the issue that if someone has lived on a farm for years or
>decades without trouble with their water and suddenly after fracking in
>their area their water is unusable that would seem to point to the
>fracking as the source of the problem.
There is still an issue: Which specific toxic or politically-incorrect
chemicals were tested for *quantatively* both before and after, and which
ones were only tested for to that extent after?
> Even Texas now requires companies to disclose their fracking formulas
>(with a predictable proprietary loophole) so concerns over fracking are
>not confined to tree-hugging eco-loonies.
I don't like American businessmen being cowboys free to play with all
kinds of big guns and screw whoever. I don't want them to be free to lie
and cheat, and to lie about their products and their polluting activities.
On the other hand, I see a big problem with chemophobia in USA. For
hypothetical example, "I just had my wellwater tested for arsenic and
benzene for the first time, done so a year after the frackers moved in 20
miles north of me. Results were 3 parts per trillion of arsenic and 1
part per trillion of benzene. THESE ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS REQUIRING ZERO
TOLERANCE!"
I hope you get my points.
Don Klipstein
Although I disagree with secrecy of indredients dumped or leaked into
the environment,
Were the specific bad contaminants found to have changed from
below-standards to above-standards as a result of fracking, or were they
only measured after?
I don't like cowboy mentality of Congress-lobbying businesses, but I
similarly dislike American-style chemophobia that likes to do post-hoc-
ergo-proptor-hoc, and to say that zero tolerance is necessary for
politically incorrect chemicals; even a picogram per gigaton is toxic
and needs to be eliminated.
DGDevin
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj1ch7...@manx.misty.com...
> There is still an issue: Which specific toxic or politically-incorrect
> chemicals were tested for *quantatively* both before and after, and which
> ones were only tested for to that extent after?
Interesting that you should use the word quantitative given that this law in
Texas apparently doesn't require companies to say how much of which
chemicals they are using, in addition to allowing them to withhold info on
chemicals they consider proprietary.
> I don't like American businessmen being cowboys free to play with all
> kinds of big guns and screw whoever. I don't want them to be free to lie
> and cheat, and to lie about their products and their polluting activities.
What are you, some kind of commie?
> On the other hand, I see a big problem with chemophobia in USA. For
> hypothetical example, "I just had my wellwater tested for arsenic and
> benzene for the first time, done so a year after the frackers moved in 20
> miles north of me. Results were 3 parts per trillion of arsenic and 1
> part per trillion of benzene. THESE ARE TOXIC CHEMICALS REQUIRING ZERO
> TOLERANCE!"
> I hope you get my points.
Your points would be more convincing if they were factually correct, as even
public water systems are allowed ten parts per billion for arsenic and five
parts per billion for benzene.
http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm
"EPA has set the arsenic standard for drinking water at .010 parts per
million (10 parts per billion) to protect consumers served by public water
systems from the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic."
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/benzene.cfm
"The MCLG for benzene is zero. EPA has set this level of protection based on
the best available science to prevent potential health problems. EPA has set
an enforceable regulation for benzene, called a maximum contaminant level
(MCL), at 0.005 mg/L or 5 ppb."
Robert Green
news:m-SdnaR6z_VHjovT...@earthlink.com...
<http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache:_HH6fE9hn-gJ:htt
p://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/7618487.html+why+did+Texas+pass+a+law
+requiring+disclosure+of+chemicals+used+in+fracking%3F&ct=clnk>
HOUSTON - Texas Gov. Rick Perry has signed a bill requiring drillers to
publicly disclose the chemicals they use when extracting oil and gas from
dense rock formations, the first state to pass such a law.
Several other state agencies have passed regulations forcing some
disclosure, but none have made it a law. Texas' law will force drillers to
post the chemicals and the amounts used beginning in July 2012.
The issue has taken on national importance as hydraulic fracturing, or
fracking, is used in more states to extract once out-of-reach hydrocarbons
from impermeable shale formations. Drillers pump chemical-laced water into
the ground at high pressure to crack the rock. Environmental groups worry
the chemicals could taint aquifers and water supplies. The industry says the
process is safe.
http://www.grist.org/list/2011-06-22-texas-fracking-disclosure-law-has-huge-omissions
Four states in addition to Texas -- Wyoming, Arkansas, Pennsylvania, and
Michigan -- are working on laws to require disclosure of fracking chemicals,
but none of them mandate that drillers disclose the concentration of the the
chemicals used. Which means that no one has any idea how much is actually
being used, or spilled. Potentially, this is sort of like calling poison
control and telling them someone drank some antifreeze, but failing to
mention that they downed a whole bottle. It's better than not calling poison
control, but it still isn't the whole story.
A second issue is that companies are not required to disclose
"non-hazardous" chemicals. This would be fine if all the chemicals they use
had been evaluated for their toxicity, but only a tiny fraction have. Worse,
chemicals that harm the environment but not humans aren't even addressed.
Finally, companies don't have to disclose any chemical that they claim is a
"trade secret." This makes sense until you realize that it could invalidate
the entire law. Want to inject millions of gallons of benzene directly into
the ground? As long as it's garnished with your secret blend of herbs and
spices, you can go right ahead!
State What's reported Volume or concentration used Proprietary chemicals
Posted online
Wyoming* All chemicals used in fracking.Volume and concentration of the
products are disclosed, but not of individual ingredients in chemical
mixtures.Disclosed to regulators; secret to the public.Yes, via state
website.
Arkansas All chemicals used in fracking.No.Exempt.Yes, via state website.
Pennsylvania All hazardous chemicals used at an individual well after
fracking is complete.For hazardous chemicals only.Unclear.**No; available by
request.
Michigan Must submit Material Safety Data Sheets for hazardous chemicals.For
hazardous chemicals only.Exempt.Yes, via state website.
Texas*** All chemicals used in fracking.For hazardous chemicals only.To be
determined.Yes, via state website and FracFocus, an industry website.
* Wyoming was the first state to require disclosure of fracking fluids.
** Pennsylvania officials did not return calls or emails seeking
clarification.
*** The Texas legislature passed the law in May 2011, but state regulators
have until 2013 to complete the actual rules
.
HeyBub
Protecting the public is a laudable goal. As I recall, however, the EPA
requires testing for arsenic and other things deemed nasty on a fairly
regular basis by virtually every water distribution system. One problem is
that the test is not cheap and this cost is imposed on systems that have
never had a detectable amount of arsenic (and other nasties) in their water.
A small system, say serving 250 customers, will be hard-pressed to devote
several thousand dollars a year looking for something that has never
existed.
Still, it's for the children and that condition trumps all other
considerations.
Jim Yanik
news:ieec171h7687c7u53...@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 10:03:45 -0500, "HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Stormin Mormon wrote:
>>> I think the .38 special is a fine defensive round, if you
>>> have the right loads, and the right shot placement. The FMJ
>>> 9 MM is less than adequate.
9mm has much more muzzle energy than .38 SPCL. (not considering +P)
ISTR a handgun that could fire either of them,used moon clips for the 9mm
rounds. .38SPCL is useable,though.
>>
>>To fire a .38 Special you have to use a revolver.
>>While simpler to
>>operate than an automatic, it IS more difficult for most ladies. And
>>you only have six opportunities to wreak havoc.
>
> Revolvers actually make great purse guns. They're "safer" than autos
some semi-autos have a DA trigger that is as safe as a revolver's trigger.
you can even get DA-only(DAO) trigger semi-autos.
> and more compact. A hammerless revolver is perfect for such an
> application. My 6" 686 isn't, however. ;-) Either will make a perp
> piss pants.
>
>>With an automatic, you can have up to 17 or so little friends to punch
>>holes in the object of your affection, er, attention. I even have a
>>couple of 30-round magazines for my 9mm Glocks.
>
> I have a 32-round magazine for my Beretta but it's hardly something
> I'd carry around for protection. A bit on the difficult side to
> conceal, too.
Heh,A bit.... :-)
>
>>I strongly agree with your dismissal of FMJ (Full Metal Jacket)
>>ammunition (with one exception). Consider instead Glazer Safety
>>(giggle) Rounds. These bullets are frangible, meaning they
>>disintegrate when they hit something, rather than passing through the
>>first thing the hit, four layers of sheetrock, two exterior walls, and
>>killing the baby slumbering peacefully in its crib next door.
Glasers are expensive,too.
>>
>>The one exception is wintertime in extreme climes where the do-bad may
>>be wearing everything he owns topped by a leather jacket. For such
>>eventualities, an otherwise over-penetrating round is indicated. In
>>the winter, I reload my carry piece with alternating Glazers and FMJs.
>>
>
sometime,I might need to shoot through a wall or car door.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
chaniarts
> Protecting the public is a laudable goal. As I recall, however, the
> EPA requires testing for arsenic and other things deemed nasty on a
> fairly regular basis by virtually every water distribution system.
surprisingly though, private wells are exempt, even in areas where it is
known to have very high levels of arsenic.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:StmdnTr-b8r_YIvT...@earthlink.com...
> Protecting the public is a laudable goal. As I recall, however, the EPA
> requires testing for arsenic and other things deemed nasty on a fairly
> regular basis by virtually every water distribution system. One problem is
> that the test is not cheap and this cost is imposed on systems that have
> never had a detectable amount of arsenic (and other nasties) in their
> water. A small system, say serving 250 customers, will be hard-pressed to
> devote several thousand dollars a year looking for something that has
> never existed.
Should a restaurant that only serves a few hundred customers be exempt from
food safety laws?
However I'd be in favor of such a system being allowed to test less often if
it can document the lack of such substances in the past, say every five
years.
> Still, it's for the children and that condition trumps all other
< considerations.
Bumper stickers belong on your car, not in your brain.
HeyBub
>
>> Still, it's for the children and that condition trumps all other
> < considerations.
>
> Bumper stickers belong on your car, not in your brain.
You'll have to give the conservatives credit, though. Our positions are made
for bumper stickers.
"Vote against Obama. Make it Unanimous"
Not to say the progressives don't have their moments:
"Frodo failed. Bush has the Ring" or, my favorite,
"South Austin: We're all here because we're not all there"
HeyBub
>>> I strongly agree with your dismissal of FMJ (Full Metal Jacket)
>>> ammunition (with one exception). Consider instead Glazer Safety
>>> (giggle) Rounds. These bullets are frangible, meaning they
>>> disintegrate when they hit something, rather than passing through
>>> the first thing the hit, four layers of sheetrock, two exterior
>>> walls, and killing the baby slumbering peacefully in its crib next
>>> door.
>
> Glasers are expensive,too.
>
Yep. But consider the alternative. When using Glaser SAFETY rounds, the
prosecutor cannot say to the jury: "When the defendant [you] left his home,
he loaded his weapon with Enraged Rhino Atomic Exploding Devastator bullets.
He INTENDED to wreak havoc, mayhem, and maximum injury on any innocents he
encountered. You can infer this by his choice of ammunition!"
And, heck, if Glasers save one innocent baby's life...
>
> sometime,I might need to shoot through a wall or car door.
12-gauge with slugs.
HeyBub
>
> 9mm has much more muzzle energy than .38 SPCL. (not considering +P)
> ISTR a handgun that could fire either of them,used moon clips for the
> 9mm rounds. .38SPCL is useable,though.
Screw that. You want a crowd-killing revolver? Get a Taurus Judge. Shoots
.410 shotgun and .45 long Colt ammunition. Load three of each and you're the
meanest SOB in the valley.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:Ld2dnQ25-qdH7YrT...@earthlink.com...
>> Bumper stickers belong on your car, not in your brain.
> You'll have to give the conservatives credit, though. Our positions are
> made for bumper stickers.
Sadly they rarely go beyond bumper stickers.
> Not to say the progressives don't have their moments:
> "Frodo failed. Bush has the Ring"
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease
Bush 2004--Four More Wars
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
I liked the Vermont bumper sticker wars before they legalized civil unions.
The first: Take Vermont Back
A few weeks later: Take Vermont Forward
Right after: Take Vermont from Behind
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:lICdncHOUqKN74rT...@earthlink.com...
> Yep. But consider the alternative. When using Glaser SAFETY rounds, the
> prosecutor cannot say to the jury: "When the defendant [you] left his
> home, he loaded his weapon with Enraged Rhino Atomic Exploding Devastator
> bullets. He INTENDED to wreak havoc, mayhem, and maximum injury on any
> innocents he encountered. You can infer this by his choice of ammunition!"
The prosecutor would paint a vivid picture of the Glaser ammo being designed
to produce horrific and highly lethal wounds and the average jury member
would buy that. That fact that hollow-point bullets (which in effect the
Glaser is) are banned for military use because they produce such horrible
wounds would probably come up as well. Remember, it's what a lawyer can
convince a jury to believe that counts.
I wonder why the air marshals didn't permanently go with Glaser ammo, you'd
think it would be perfect for their job. There is also the point that
frequent practice with your defensive ammo of choice is a good idea, and
Glaser ammo is quite expensive.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:zaGdnfgdRqTm74rT...@earthlink.com...
> Screw that. You want a crowd-killing revolver? Get a Taurus Judge. Shoots
> .410 shotgun and .45 long Colt ammunition. Load three of each and you're
> the meanest SOB in the valley.
That would be a good trick considering the Judge only holds five rounds.
Why go with a five-shot revolver when you could get an eight-shot .357 like
a Taurus 608? Just as much muzzle energy (depending on the cartridge) and
three more shots. Or are you under the impression that burglars are
susceptible to the sheer scariness of some handguns and will flee when
confronted by someone holding handgun A while handgun B will inspire them to
attack?
HeyBub
>
> Bush 2004--Four More Wars
For some of us, that would be an incentive to vote for Bush.
In our view, we need a war every ten years or so to keep the tip of the
spear sharp. (How long the wars should last is another matter entirely.)
Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.
HeyBub
>
> The prosecutor would paint a vivid picture of the Glaser ammo being
> designed to produce horrific and highly lethal wounds and the average
> jury member would buy that. That fact that hollow-point bullets
> (which in effect the Glaser is) are banned for military use because
> they produce such horrible wounds would probably come up as well.
> Remember, it's what a lawyer can convince a jury to believe that
> counts.
I agree and, as I said, it's easier for the prosecution to make a case if
the ammunition used was marketed as a mutilating round instead of a "safety"
bullet.
The defense would counter with all the safety features built into the round:
It will not over-penetrate or ricochet, it expends all its energy in the
first thing it hits, thereby protecting innocents in the vicinity, and so
forth.
I urge you to refrain from commenting on matters of detail of which you know
little. Glasers are NOT hollow-point bullets. As such, they are NOT banned
for use in warfare and, in fact, ARE used in some military operations (i.e.,
SEAL team type operations). The bullets are "frangible" which means they
break apart or disintegrate when they hit something harder than they are.
They are made of composite. (plastics) that are fused or glued together.
In addition, and you'll no doubt support this, they are LEAD FREE, thereby
saving the children.
>
> I wonder why the air marshals didn't permanently go with Glaser ammo,
> you'd think it would be perfect for their job. There is also the
> point that frequent practice with your defensive ammo of choice is a
> good idea, and Glaser ammo is quite expensive.
Yeah, but if it's for the children, cost be damned.
HeyBub
> "HeyBub" wrote in message
> news:zaGdnfgdRqTm74rT...@earthlink.com...
>
>> Screw that. You want a crowd-killing revolver? Get a Taurus Judge.
>> Shoots .410 shotgun and .45 long Colt ammunition. Load three of each
>> and you're the meanest SOB in the valley.
>
> That would be a good trick considering the Judge only holds five
> rounds.
You're correct. My mistake. I was thinking of the appellate division model.
>
> Why go with a five-shot revolver when you could get an eight-shot
> .357 like a Taurus 608? Just as much muzzle energy (depending on the
> cartridge) and three more shots. Or are you under the impression
> that burglars are susceptible to the sheer scariness of some handguns
> and will flee when confronted by someone holding handgun A while
> handgun B will inspire them to attack?
Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You are
almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a sting, but the
damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.
Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police agencies
abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a pistol has a
calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG intimidating factor, the
bigger the weapon the more sobering effect on the stink-eye.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:5MydnVwsUboSyYXT...@earthlink.com...
>> Bush 2004--Four More Wars
> For some of us, that would be an incentive to vote for Bush.
Exactly, it's an ongoing problem.
> In our view, we need a war every ten years or so to keep the tip of the
> spear sharp. (How long the wars should last is another matter entirely.)
That's one of many problems with wars of choice, they have a way of getting
out of control. They also alienate allies, waste resources and tie down
forces needed elsewhere.
> Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
> who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.
Last year more members of the American armed services committed suicide than
died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about stuff like that,
since they volunteered their lives can be squandered in any half-witted
adventure the CinC can dream up.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:MtednejwntzdyoXT...@earthlink.com...
> I agree and, as I said, it's easier for the prosecution to make a case if
> the ammunition used was marketed as a mutilating round instead of a
> "safety" bullet.
All it would take is big color photos of wounds caused by such ammo to
convince the jury that the "safety" label was nonsense.
> I urge you to refrain from commenting on matters of detail of which you
> know little. Glasers are NOT hollow-point bullets.
They're de facto hollow-points filled with birdshot.
> As such, they are NOT banned for use in warfare and, in fact, ARE used in
> some military operations (i.e., SEAL team type operations).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/frangible.htm
"Frangible rounds are available in a wide array of pistol calibers, but due
to the inherently high velocities of rifle rounds, frangible ammunition is
much less effective in rifles. It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm
NATO, and its performance in actual combat is dubious. There are two
frangible rounds that have been approved for training purposes only. One is
a 9mm, and the other a 5.56. Approval for operational use will depend on the
special mission requirements (the military necessity) for the round."
> In addition, and you'll no doubt support this, they are LEAD FREE, thereby
> saving the children.
If only the dangers of infants eating lead paint chips had been better known
when you were a child....
Kurt Ullman
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
> > who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.
>
> Last year more members of the American armed services committed suicide than
> died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about stuff like that,
> since they volunteered their lives can be squandered in any half-witted
> adventure the CinC can dream up.
Which means nothing. 2008, the last year I can find actual rates of
suicide, the 17.5 soldiers committing suicide per 100,000 soliders was a
tick below the rate for civilians. What is interesting, is that there is
an increase because the rate actually used to be much below the civilian
rate.
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:ZtednY83jK23xIXT...@earthlink.com...
> Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You are
> almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a sting, but
> the damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.
Hogwash. Can you document that the shot spread from a .410 fired from a
Judge would cover the average residential hallway at the ranges at which
such an encounter is likely to occur? This issue has come up here before,
and we learned that at realistic home-defense ranges the spread of shot from
a short-barreled shotgun is so small as to be pointless.
> Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police
> agencies abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a
> pistol has a calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG intimidating
> factor, the bigger the weapon the more sobering effect on the stink-eye.
So last paragraph you were painting a picture of a dark hallway in which one
would need to spray shot around to get a hit, but now suddenly the burglar
can see and identify the model of firearm you're holding and be intimidated
by the awesome manliness of your choice of weapon. More hogwash.
I understand why gun makers produce these goofball weapons, there is a
steady market for them with people who like to fantasize about their
self-defense needs and have a weakness for movie prop firearms. Meanwhile,
back on planet Earth the common sense approach is to rely on a controllable,
reliable weapon with enough stopping power to deliver one-shot results, and
to get in plenty of practice. But don't let that stop you from buying a
.50cal hand cannon with a bayonet mount if that floats your boat, somebody
has to buy that silly stuff to keep the gun makers in business. Just keep
in mind that fishing lures aren't designed to catch fish, they're designed
to catch fishermen.
Don Klipstein
>In article <Y4KdndTPjJPlF4XT...@earthlink.com>,
> "DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
>>> who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.
>>
>> Last year more members of the American armed services committed suicide
>> than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about stuff like
>> that, since they volunteered their lives can be squandered in any
>> half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.
> Which means nothing. 2008, the last year I can find actual rates of
>suicide, the 17.5 soldiers committing suicide per 100,000 soliders was a
>tick below the rate for civilians. What is interesting, is that there is
>an increase because the rate actually used to be much below the civilian
>rate.
You think USA's overall suicide rate or civilian suicide rate exceeds
17.5 per 100,000 per year?
Can you cite that?
I can cite that USA's overall rate was about 11 in 2007:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Suicide-deaths-per-100000-trend.jpg
11.5 per 100,000, looking somewhat likely for 2008:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm
For higher-side figures, there is:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28895624/ns/us_news-military/t/suicides-
continue-alarming-rise-military/
The Army calculates its suicide rate to have risen to 20.2 per
100,000, and I did not see clear mention of what year, maybe 2008 since
this article was published in 2009.
(No per-100,000 rate for all branches of the military, but in this 2009
article the Army mentions 128 suicides and 15 other deaths under
investigation as suicides.)
Offered for comparison was American males 18-24, and the rate was 19.8
per 100,000.
So, it is looking like military suicide rate rose to about that of
comparable-age-gender-demographics civilians.
Don Klipstein
>
>"HeyBub" wrote in <MtednejwntzdyoXT...@earthlink.com>...
>
>> I agree and, as I said, it's easier for the prosecution to make a case
>> if the ammunition used was marketed as a mutilating round instead of a
>> "safety" bullet.
>
>All it would take is big color photos of wounds caused by such ammo to
>convince the jury that the "safety" label was nonsense.
>
>> I urge you to refrain from commenting on matters of detail of which you
>> know little. Glasers are NOT hollow-point bullets.
>
>They're de facto hollow-points filled with birdshot.
If they create horrible wounds, with great rapid blood loss if they hit
a broad area of the chest especially in the lungs, then they cause quick
incapacitation without necessity to achieve shot placement to the heart,
aorta or brainstem or spinal cord.
Self-defense by use of a gun is better served by quick incapacitation of
your enemy, which has a significant fatality rate. Deterrence achieved
without firing a shot is usually achieved through threat of death,
secondarily threat of great weakening leading to arrest and/or major body
damage - if survived.
Why else have a gun?
Yes, I am aware of training classes towards carrying permits that
advise to carry what the cops carry, nothing "deadlier". Thankfully for
Philadelphia, their cops have 4 official options (that they have to pay
for) to officially-on-duty-carry heavier-caliber sidearms than the
standard-issue-for-free 9 mm one.
>> As such, they are NOT banned for use in warfare and, in fact, ARE
>> used in some military operations (i.e., SEAL team type operations).
>
>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/frangible.htm
>
>"Frangible rounds are available in a wide array of pistol calibers, but
>due to the inherently high velocities of rifle rounds, frangible
>ammunition is much less effective in rifles.
I can see issue of the bullet breaking up before hitting its target if
it has to be accelerated to ~3,000 feet/second / ~900 meters/second.
Other than that, if the target is unarmored personnel, and a frangible
or hollowpoint bullet stays intact until impact, what better to use?
> It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO, and its performance
>in actual combat is dubious. There are two frangible rounds that have
>been approved for training purposes only. One is a 9mm, and the other a
>5.56.
Can you get your story straight as to whether the one other than 5.56mm
is 7.62mm or 9mm?
Otherwise, one approved for training purposes only is not produced.
Unless, approved-for-training-only is not necessarily being produced.
That could mean 7.62mm is in production and not limited to training.
For that matter, is 5.56 mm production limited to a specific item only
approved for training?
Furthermore, there is common usage of a 5.56 mm round that often
fragments if it hits human bodies within 150 meters or whatever.
There is a requirement for military rounds to not flatten or expand
after getting into a human body: Hague Convention of 1899, Declaration
III.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
That follows St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868.
There is such a thing as a jurisdiction that restricts towards
generally-prohibiting hollow-point ammo, but requires bullets that
*do* expand after impact in some of the few areas where it is legal to
use guns:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_point_bullet#United_Kingdom
The hollow-point article in Wikipedia mentions desireability for
usually stopping in first human it hits in police work and civilian
self-defense. Same can be said of frangible bullets.
>Approval for operational use will depend on the special mission
>requirements (the military necessity) for the round."
There is some desire for military rifle rounds to be penetrating - such
as for use against vehicle occupants, vehicle gasoline tanks, and enemies
wearing lighter-weight body armor.
<SNIP stuff on lead and children>
Don Klipstein
>
>"HeyBub" wrote in message
>news:ZtednY83jK23xIXT...@earthlink.com...
>
>> Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You are
>> almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a sting, but
>> the damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.
>
>Hogwash. Can you document that the shot spread from a .410 fired from a
>Judge would cover the average residential hallway at the ranges at which
>such an encounter is likely to occur? This issue has come up here before,
>and we learned that at realistic home-defense ranges the spread of shot
>from a short-barreled shotgun is so small as to be pointless.
A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel shotguns.
>> Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police
>> agencies abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a
>> pistol has a calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG intimidating
>> factor, the bigger the weapon the more sobering effect on the stink-eye.
>
>So last paragraph you were painting a picture of a dark hallway in which
>one would need to spray shot around to get a hit, but now suddenly the
>burglar can see and identify the model of firearm you're holding and be
>intimidated by the awesome manliness of your choice of weapon. More
>hogwash.
Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such dark
situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at intimidation
when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be seen, which I expect
to be more than 0% of the time.
<SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons">
aemeijers
>
(snip)
Just keep in mind that fishing lures aren't designed
> to catch fish, they're designed to catch fishermen.
>
Chortle. I love that one- so true! Brings to mind how pet food recipes
are designed to appeal to the human, not the dog or cat.
--
aem sends...
Jim Yanik
news:slrnj1hhf...@manx.misty.com:
> In art. <WKSdnd5mlMlLEYXT...@earthlink.com>, DGDevin
> wrote:
>>
>>"HeyBub" wrote in <MtednejwntzdyoXT...@earthlink.com>...
>>
>>> I agree and, as I said, it's easier for the prosecution to make a
>>> case if the ammunition used was marketed as a mutilating round
>>> instead of a "safety" bullet.
>>
>>All it would take is big color photos of wounds caused by such ammo to
>>convince the jury that the "safety" label was nonsense.
>>
>>> I urge you to refrain from commenting on matters of detail of which
>>> you know little. Glasers are NOT hollow-point bullets.
>>
>>They're de facto hollow-points filled with birdshot.
they are NOT not "defacto hollow points".
who came up with that nonsense?
>
> If they create horrible wounds, with great rapid blood loss if they
> hit
> a broad area of the chest especially in the lungs, then they cause
> quick incapacitation without necessity to achieve shot placement to
> the heart, aorta or brainstem or spinal cord.
they aren't going to "hit a broad area" because they don't begin to
fragment until they actually strike something stiff enough.
by that time,the birdshot will stay pretty much in the immediate area.it
will lose momentum very quickly.
>
> Self-defense by use of a gun is better served by quick
> incapacitation of
> your enemy, which has a significant fatality rate. Deterrence
> achieved without firing a shot is usually achieved through threat of
> death, secondarily threat of great weakening leading to arrest and/or
> major body damage - if survived.
>
> Why else have a gun?
>
> Yes, I am aware of training classes towards carrying permits that
> advise to carry what the cops carry, nothing "deadlier". Thankfully
> for Philadelphia, their cops have 4 official options (that they have
> to pay for) to officially-on-duty-carry heavier-caliber sidearms than
> the standard-issue-for-free 9 mm one.
>
>>> As such, they are NOT banned for use in warfare and, in fact, ARE
>>> used in some military operations (i.e., SEAL team type operations).
>>
>>http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/frangible.htm
>>
>>"Frangible rounds are available in a wide array of pistol calibers,
>>but due to the inherently high velocities of rifle rounds, frangible
>>ammunition is much less effective in rifles.
>
> I can see issue of the bullet breaking up before hitting its target
> if
> it has to be accelerated to ~3,000 feet/second / ~900 meters/second.
>
> Other than that, if the target is unarmored personnel, and a
> frangible
> or hollowpoint bullet stays intact until impact, what better to use?
the mass of a frangible will be lower than that of a solid bullet,and thus
have a worse ballistic trajectory(they don't go as far),and have lower
terminal impact energy.(they don't hit hard enough)
that's why shotgun pellets are only effective out to a few 100 yards or
so,they lose so much energy they are not effective.
Same goes for BB's from BBguns.
>
>> It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO, and its
>> performance
>>in actual combat is dubious. There are two frangible rounds that have
>>been approved for training purposes only. One is a 9mm, and the other
>>a 5.56.
>
> Can you get your story straight as to whether the one other than
> 5.56mm
> is 7.62mm or 9mm?
9mm is a pistol/carbine caliber,and the US doesn't use 7.62 for it's
general purpose assault rifles.
7.62 NATO is used in sniper rifles(M-21),along with .300 Win Magnum and
.338 Lapua.
M-4's/M-16's are .223 or 5.56 NATO.
Even Russia moved away from 7.62x39 for it's assault rifles.they now use
5.45mmx39.
> Otherwise, one approved for training purposes only is not produced.
> Unless, approved-for-training-only is not necessarily being produced.
> That could mean 7.62mm is in production and not limited to training.
> For that matter, is 5.56 mm production limited to a specific item only
> approved for training?
>
> Furthermore, there is common usage of a 5.56 mm round that often
> fragments if it hits human bodies within 150 meters or whatever.
>
> There is a requirement for military rounds to not flatten or expand
> after getting into a human body: Hague Convention of 1899,
> Declaration III.
"not EASILY fragment or expand" is what Wiki said.
bullets may not be DESIGNED to fragment.(for war use)
if a legal bullet hits bone,it still may fragment. there are variables to
be considered.
FMJ bullets normally flatten or distort upon impact with bone.
>
> http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/dec99-03.asp
>
> That follows St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868.
>
> There is such a thing as a jurisdiction that restricts towards
> generally-prohibiting hollow-point ammo, but requires bullets that
> *do* expand after impact in some of the few areas where it is legal to
> use guns:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_point_bullet#United_Kingdom
Who cares what the UK does??
>
> The hollow-point article in Wikipedia mentions desireability for
> usually stopping in first human it hits in police work and civilian
> self-defense. Same can be said of frangible bullets.
>
>>Approval for operational use will depend on the special mission
>>requirements (the military necessity) for the round."
>
> There is some desire for military rifle rounds to be penetrating -
> such
> as for use against vehicle occupants, vehicle gasoline tanks, and
> enemies wearing lighter-weight body armor.
such ammo generally uses hard metal cores,like steel or tungsten carbide.
Prohibited from import into the US since 1986,IIRC.
civilian handgun ammo is prohibited from having steel or other hard
materials used in their bullet construction. no steel core,no brass
slugs,no carbide cores. the original KTW "armor-piercing" ammo was designed
for police to use against automobiles,but was never put into production.
then there was the "teflon coated bullet" furor,where the teflon was only
intended to prevent damage to the rifling and make for better
windshield penetration,not for any armor-piercing quality.(which it doesn't
have...)
check out Raufoss ammo.....
DGDevin
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj1hhf...@manx.misty.com...
> Self-defense by use of a gun is better served by quick incapacitation of
> your enemy, which has a significant fatality rate.
That's true and irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about what a
DA can sell to a jury, and a bullet that breaks up on impact producing a
horrific wound is just what the DA is looking for in convincing jurors that
the guy who fired that bullet is a bloodthirsty thug. That's why there are
consultants who make good money testifying as expert witnesses in
self-defense cases whose job it is to explain to a jury why a hollow point
bullet is actually safer than a FMJ bullet. Presumably said experts could
make the same argument for Glaser rounds if the defense lawyer is smart
enough to hire them and the client can afford it.
> Yes, I am aware of training classes towards carrying permits that
> advise to carry what the cops carry, nothing "deadlier". Thankfully for
> Philadelphia, their cops have 4 official options (that they have to pay
> for) to officially-on-duty-carry heavier-caliber sidearms than the
> standard-issue-for-free 9 mm one.
That's a good point, matching what the cops use is a smart move legally, the
so-called "New York trigger" also being useful. Because if God forbid you
ever need to use a firearm defensively then there is a chance your troubles
aren't over when they haul away the burglar you shot. A hungry lawyer or an
ambitious DA will be looking for pegs on which to hang the story that you
were looking for trouble etc.
> It is only produced in 5.56mm NATO and 7.62mm NATO, and its performance
>in actual combat is dubious. There are two frangible rounds that have
>been approved for training purposes only. One is a 9mm, and the other a
>5.56.
> Can you get your story straight as to whether the one other than 5.56mm
> is 7.62mm or 9mm?
I assume the source I linked to (it isn't *my* story) means there are only
two rifle cartridges using Glaser bullets, but the military has authorized
both a rifle round and a handgun/SMG round for training purposes.
Jim Yanik
> In <oLOdnT0ScI50DYXT...@earthlink.com>, DGDevin wrote:
>>
>>"HeyBub" wrote in message
>>news:ZtednY83jK23xIXT...@earthlink.com...
>>
>>> Couple of reasons: First, the Judge can fire .410 shotgun ammo. You
>>> are almost guaranteed a hit in a darkened hallway - maybe only a
>>> sting, but the damage to the squint goes from a twitch to death.
>>
>>Hogwash. Can you document that the shot spread from a .410 fired from
>>a Judge would cover the average residential hallway at the ranges at
>>which such an encounter is likely to occur? This issue has come up
>>here before, and we learned that at realistic home-defense ranges the
>>spread of shot from a short-barreled shotgun is so small as to be
>>pointless.
>
> A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel
> shotguns.
heh,WAY shorter.
BTW,in the US,short-barrel shotguns are NFA weapons,meaning they have to be
registered,the owner fingerprinted,background checked,and a $200 tax paid.
>
>>> Second, one purpose of a firearm is intimidation. That's why police
>>> agencies abandoned flap holsters many years ago; the mere sight of a
>>> pistol has a calming effect on most slopes. While not a BIG
>>> intimidating factor, the bigger the weapon the more sobering effect
>>> on the stink-eye.
>>
>>So last paragraph you were painting a picture of a dark hallway in
>>which one would need to spray shot around to get a hit, but now
>>suddenly the burglar can see and identify the model of firearm you're
>>holding and be intimidated by the awesome manliness of your choice of
>>weapon. More hogwash.
>
> Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such
> dark
> situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at
> intimidation when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be
> seen, which I expect to be more than 0% of the time.
>
><SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons">
To a crook trying to rob you,appearance of ANY handgun is enough to usually
make them turn and flee.
the LAST thing any crook wants is to get shot,because they'd have to go to
a doctor or emergency room for treatment(or bleed out...fine with me.),and
gunshot wounds MUST be reported to police,meaning that they WILL be
apprehended. Blood at the scene is also evidence.
Crooks would rather flee and pick an easier target,an unarmed victim.
Far safer and less risky for the crook.
Larger handguns are less likely to be carried,because of their size and
weight making for poor concealment and discomfort.
DGDevin
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj1hhs...@manx.misty.com...
> A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel shotguns.
If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could shoot
out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at least a foot
or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve feet (realistic home
defense range) then fine, I'll take it as proven that such a weapon will
indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can anyone do that?
> Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such dark
> situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at intimidation
> when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be seen, which I expect
> to be more than 0% of the time.
Would-be burglar, would-be mugger, would-be carjacker--the notion that
they're likely to size up the bore diameter of one revolver vs. another and
make a calculated judgment that they going to go for it rather than run away
or freeze strikes me as highly unlikely. How many of us here would think,
"Hmmm, that looks like it's only a 16 ga., I think I'll take a run at that
guy," or "I'd surrender if he had a .44, but I ain't scared of no .357."
Get real.
> <SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons">
Many years ago I worked in a gun shop for a short time, and the owner and
his employees would happily take the money of people who talked themselves
into goofball weapons they saw in Guns & Ammo or Soldier of Fortune or
whatever magazine. The idea of using a handgun chambered for a shotgun
shell as a defensive weapon is hilarious to me, but as I say, the people who
buy such things keep the gun companies in business.
DGDevin
"aemeijers" wrote in message
news:ObadnSre79TvTYXT...@giganews.com...
> Just keep in mind that fishing lures aren't designed
> to catch fish, they're designed to catch fishermen.
> Chortle. I love that one- so true! Brings to mind how pet food recipes are
> designed to appeal to the human, not the dog or cat.
Yup, and some tools seem to be aimed at the guy who cares what his neighbor
thinks rather than at a pro who uses the tool to make a living. I don't
need flames and skulls on my power tools thanks. ;~)
Ralph Mowery
"DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:oNCdndF6zvdYRoXT...@earthlink.com...
> If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could shoot
> out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at least a
> foot or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve feet
> (realistic home defense range) then fine, I'll take it as proven that such
> a weapon will indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can anyone do
> that?
>
You can go here for some demonstrations of the Judge and other guns.
Just look for the Judge Revisited.
Don Klipstein
>D...@DonKlipstein.com wrote in news:slrnj1hhf...@manx.misty.com:
<BIG SNIP be me to this particular point>
>> There is some desire for military rifle rounds to be penetrating -
>> such as for use against vehicle occupants, vehicle gasoline tanks, and
>> enemies wearing lighter-weight body armor.
>
>such ammo generally uses hard metal cores,like steel or tungsten carbide.
>Prohibited from import into the US since 1986,IIRC.
>civilian handgun ammo is prohibited from having steel or other hard
>materials used in their bullet construction. no steel core,no brass
>slugs,no carbide cores. the original KTW "armor-piercing" ammo was
>designed for police to use against automobiles,but was never put into
>production. Then there was the "teflon coated bullet" furor,where the
>teflon was only intended to prevent damage to the rifling and make for
>better windshield penetration,not for any armor-piercing quality.(which
>it doesn't have...)
>
>check out Raufoss ammo.....
I was thinking of usual military small-arms rifle rounds, which in my
bits of Wiki experience tend to be FMJ "spitzer" bullets.
Such as usual implementations of 5.56x45 mm NATO, and 7.62x51 mm NATO.
(Although 5.56x45 mm NATO did run into standardization to SS109 bullet,
more-penetrating, to penetrate a steel helmet, largely in response to
many complaints of the previous 5.56 mm M193 round producing devastating
wounds.)
According to the Wiki article on 5.56x45mm NATO.
(Then again, what is warfare?)
Kurt Ullman
D...@DonKlipstein.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <TpadnZtnlK3RE4XT...@earthlink.com>, Kurt Ullman wrote:
> >In article <Y4KdndTPjJPlF4XT...@earthlink.com>,
> > "DGDevin" <DGD...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >>> Right now there's not a commander in the field, from sergeant to general,
> >>> who hasn't lead men in combat! You can't BUY that kind of competence.
> >>
> >> Last year more members of the American armed services committed suicide
> >> than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about stuff like
> >> that, since they volunteered their lives can be squandered in any
> >> half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.
>
> > Which means nothing. 2008, the last year I can find actual rates of
> >suicide, the 17.5 soldiers committing suicide per 100,000 soliders was a
> >tick below the rate for civilians. What is interesting, is that there is
> >an increase because the rate actually used to be much below the civilian
> >rate.
>
> You think USA's overall suicide rate or civilian suicide rate exceeds
> 17.5 per 100,000 per year?
http://www.armedforces-int.com/news/us-army-soldier-suicide-rates-on-the-
up.html
"By the year's end, it had leapt to 17.5/ 100,000.
Such a ratio lies marginally below that of suicides among civilians."
> So, it is looking like military suicide rate rose to about that of
> comparable-age-gender-demographics civilians.
Which is pretty much what I said.
Don Klipstein
>
>"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj1hhf...@manx.misty.com...
>
>> Self-defense by use of a gun is better served by quick incapacitation of
>> your enemy, which has a significant fatality rate.
>
>That's true and irrelevant to this discussion.
But very relevant to why to use guns, which I think *is* relevant,
even in cases of deciding by DA or a judge or a jury as to "justifiable
homicide vs. murder".
> We're talking about what a
>DA can sell to a jury, and a bullet that breaks up on impact producing a
>horrific wound is just what the DA is looking for in convincing jurors that
>the guy who fired that bullet is a bloodthirsty thug. That's why there are
>consultants who make good money testifying as expert witnesses in
>self-defense cases whose job it is to explain to a jury why a hollow point
>bullet is actually safer than a FMJ bullet. Presumably said experts could
>make the same argument for Glaser rounds if the defense lawyer is smart
>enough to hire them and the client can afford it.
The DA can alternatively make a case to the jury that penetrating bullets
were irresponsibly or deliberately chosen, should the defendant that the
DA has a hard-on for choose to make a case against.
Penetrating bullets are riskier to penetrate walls and initial human
targets, which means greater risk of killing/harming those other than who
they initially hit. (Or missed, if they penetrate walls-in-question in
fatal way that frangible bullets cannot penetrate.)
>> Yes, I am aware of training classes towards carrying permits that
>> advise to carry what the cops carry, nothing "deadlier". Thankfully
>> for Philadelphia, their cops have 4 official options (that they have
>> to pay for) to officially-on-duty-carry heavier-caliber sidearms than
>> the standard-issue-for-free 9 mm one.
>
>That's a good point, matching what the cops use is a smart move legally,
>the so-called "New York trigger" also being useful. Because if God
>forbid you ever need to use a firearm defensively then there is a chance
>your troubles aren't over when they haul away the burglar you shot.
Preferably call the police to haul away someone giving good appearance
of being lawfully shot in self-defense of life or home, as jurisdictional
law allows.
> A hungry lawyer or an ambitious DA will be looking for pegs on which to
>hang the story that you were looking for trouble etc.
Will a DA be ambitious to prosecute a law-abider doing self-defense
against a criminal? How well would that play, unless needing to be
re-elected in a jurisdiction whose voters favor the criminals?
.......................
<SNIP whether or not stories are straight as to 2 or 3 military rifle
rounds were usede in form of frangible bullets, and how many if any were
put into production.>
HeyBub
>
> Last year more members of the American armed services committed
> suicide than died in combat. But I forget, you don't care much about
> stuff like that, since they volunteered their lives can be squandered
> in any half-witted adventure the CinC can dream up.
As a percentage, fewer members of the armed services commit suicide than
their same-age-group counterparts in the civilian sector. One could claim,
therefore, that military service REDUCES the incidence of people taking
their own life.
Don Klipstein
I was hoping you would disagree more with DGDevin than that...
Someone self-defending home, body, life, or limb with a handgun -
I want to be as free to do so with a .357 Magnum revolver with deadliest
rounds, .44 magnum, whatever .45 looks intimidating, .50 "Desert Eagle",
even .500 S&W,
(Even in the unlikely event the perp knows that most human can't
effectively tactically handle a handgun that is majority of an
"elephant gun", and also recognizes the handgun as being better against
buffalo than quick-and-nimble ciminals - though many criminals aren't
so quick-and-nimble.)
I want freedom to use .500 S&W or biggest-baddest that Philadelphia
cops can buy into officially carrying on-duty to be as free to use as
handguns are allowed to use, as whatever weakling handguns are proposed
as alternative to be less restricted. (I prefer to not name examples
of "weaklings" of self-defense handguns, since I prefer more-capable and
more-intimidating-regardless-of-capability handguns to be allowed where
any all are legally allowed - which should be by law-abiding citizens in
all 50 states and DC!)
HeyBub
>
> BTW,in the US,short-barrel shotguns are NFA weapons,meaning they have
> to be registered,the owner fingerprinted,background checked,and a
> $200 tax paid.
>
That's why you have your CORPORATION buy the weapon. You still have to pay
the transfer tax, but there's no background check or fingerprinting.
And the best reason to put down on the NFA form as a reason for obtaining
the weapon: "Investment."
HeyBub
> "Don Klipstein" wrote in message
> news:slrnj1hhs...@manx.misty.com...
>> A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel
>> shotguns.
>
> If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could
> shoot out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at
> least a foot or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve
> feet (realistic home defense range) then fine, I'll take it as proven
> that such a weapon will indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can
> anyone do that?
A three-inch spread at 21 feet using special defensive ammo
http://gunnuts.net/2010/12/15/winchester-pdx1-410-ammo-review/
Don Klipstein
>
>
>"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj1hhs...@manx.misty.com...
>
>> A pistol usually has a shorter barrel than most short-barrel shotguns.
>
>If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could
>shoot out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at
>least a foot or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve feet
>(realistic home defense range) then fine, I'll take it as proven that
>such a weapon will indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can
>anyone do that?
It appears to me that you are asking for incompacitation by beyond
merely stinging. It appears to me that a perp stung that way can usually
take 15 hours or a day to go to a hospital, (in the only-somewhat-likely
event the wound is worse than home care and a loving spouse,
prospective-spouse or parent can do everything needed.)
And, I expect such better-incapacitation-by-shotguns to be better-done
with barrel length longer than that of most pistols.
>> Enemy is not always a burglar, and not always threatening in such dark
>> situations. One's self-defense weapon should be useful at intimidation
>> when seen in lighting conditions that allow it to be seen, which I expect
>> to be more than 0% of the time.
>
>Would-be burglar, would-be mugger, would-be carjacker--the notion that
>they're likely to size up the bore diameter of one revolver vs. another and
>make a calculated judgment that they going to go for it rather than run away
>or freeze strikes me as highly unlikely. How many of us here would think,
>"Hmmm, that looks like it's only a 16 ga., I think I'll take a run at that
>guy," or "I'd surrender if he had a .44, but I ain't scared of no .357."
>Get real.
"Ain't scared of no .357" - my Wiki experience so far that fastest
"time to incapacitation" among all rounds mentioned in that area is a
.357 one, more of a champion in that area than .44 magnum according to
Wiki.
As for surrender in face of some but not all handguns - I expect some
perps to be willing to combat ones with .25 single-shot derrigers and
some (orten at their own expense) to be willing to combat persons armed
with .22 handguns.
I expect most law-abiders armed with obviously-multi-shot handguns
at least .357, .38, 9mm, especially anything bigger-"badder" to
at least sometimes out-intimidate criminals packing "lesser heat".
Especially if the good-guys (and gals) take the class that some USA
states require to get a license/permit to "pack heat".
>> <SNIP stuff from here 1st line of which includes "goofball weapons">
>
>Many years ago I worked in a gun shop for a short time, and the owner and
>his employees would happily take the money of people who talked themselves
>into goofball weapons they saw in Guns & Ammo or Soldier of Fortune or
>whatever magazine. The idea of using a handgun chambered for a shotgun
>shell as a defensive weapon is hilarious to me, but as I say, the people
>who buy such things keep the gun companies in business.
Handgun chambered for a shotgun round, at least primarily for a common
shotgun round, sounds to me even more goofball than a handgun that is
"majority of being an elephant gun" (my words), such as S&W 500.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
aemeijers
Ooh, you stumbled on a pet peeve of mine. A couple three years ago, I
needed to buy a drill for screwing down some deck boards. My cordless
didn't have the oomph, and I had recently smoked my 30 YO B&D cheapie
drilling through some 45 YO doug fir top plates to fish wiring. Seems
like every damn drill both big-boxes had in my price range looked like a
damn kid's toy raygun, with two-tone paint jobs, meaningless fins and
fake cooling grilles, etc. I finally went up a notch on price, and
found a Makita that actually looked like a frigging drill- one color, no
fins, etc. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised- almost all the new
cars and trucks currently on the lots look like gigantic 1970s Hot
Wheels cars, with exaggerated cartoon styling cues and all sorts of
pointless bumps and bulges. I guess today's industrial designers are
drawing what they grew up with. Miles Van de Rohe (sp?) would be
spinning in his grave.
--
aem sends...
--
aem sends....
aemeijers
What is the current definition of 'short barrel' shotgun? IIRC, the
Mossberg 500 'special service' cheapie sitting in the closet came from
factory with 18.5" or 19" breech-to-muzzle-tip barrel, same length as
the 5-shot magazine. Signed my name, gave them money (it was on sale),
and walked out with it.
--
aem sends...
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Post hoc ergo propter hoc? More likely fewer crazies make it through the
selection process.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
There is a reason you see them with a barrel length of 18.5" or 19". The
legal limit is 18" (overall length 26"). Below that and you have to throw
them back.
Vic Smith
wrote:
snip
> I finally went up a notch on price, and
>found a Makita that actually looked like a frigging drill- one color, no
>fins, etc. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised- almost all the new
>cars and trucks currently on the lots look like gigantic 1970s Hot
>Wheels cars, with exaggerated cartoon styling cues and all sorts of
>pointless bumps and bulges. I guess today's industrial designers are
>drawing what they grew up with. Miles Van de Rohe (sp?) would be
>spinning in his grave.
>
Seems the odd lines and bulges are more of a PU and SUV trend.
Newer cars all look pretty much the same to me. Not sure though.
I think gas-mileage aerodynamics is dictating a lot of styling.
The Pontiacs with all that side molding is what I always found "ugly
and stupid."
Here's an example.
http://tinyurl.com/3rw9w46
But some people like that kind of thing. Think the Grand Am was the
main Pontiac culprit, and they sold a lot of those.
Hey, I have one in my driveway, a '93, real cheap bought used and a
good runner, so maybe I should just shut up about it..
--Vic
HeyBub
Yep, which illustrates why a particular statistic often illuminates the
symptom rather than the underlying problem.
Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad thing.
HeyBub
>
> Someone self-defending home, body, life, or limb with a handgun -
> I want to be as free to do so with a .357 Magnum revolver with
> deadliest rounds, .44 magnum, whatever .45 looks intimidating, .50
> "Desert Eagle", even .500 S&W,
> (Even in the unlikely event the perp knows that most human can't
> effectively tactically handle a handgun that is majority of an
> "elephant gun", and also recognizes the handgun as being better
> against buffalo than quick-and-nimble ciminals - though many
> criminals aren't
> so quick-and-nimble.)
>
> I want freedom to use .500 S&W or biggest-baddest that Philadelphia
> cops can buy into officially carrying on-duty to be as free to use as
> handguns are allowed to use, as whatever weakling handguns are
> proposed as alternative to be less restricted. (I prefer to not name
> examples
> of "weaklings" of self-defense handguns, since I prefer more-capable
> and more-intimidating-regardless-of-capability handguns to be allowed
> where any all are legally allowed - which should be by law-abiding
> citizens in all 50 states and DC!)
Don't forget the rule: "A pistol is used to fight your way to a long gun."
HeyBub
>>
>> If someone can document that the .410 buckshot rounds that one could
>> shoot out of a Judge revolver will spread those three pellets out at
>> least a foot or maybe eighteen inches apart at a range of say twelve
>> feet (realistic home defense range) then fine, I'll take it as
>> proven that
>> such a weapon will indeed sweep HeyBub's hypothetical hallway. Can
>> anyone do that?
>
> It appears to me that you are asking for incompacitation by beyond
> merely stinging. It appears to me that a perp stung that way can
> usually take 15 hours or a day to go to a hospital, (in the
> only-somewhat-likely event the wound is worse than home care and a
> loving spouse, prospective-spouse or parent can do everything needed.)
>
> And, I expect such better-incapacitation-by-shotguns to be
> better-done with barrel length longer than that of most pistols.
A "sting" may be good enough. While the goblin is hopping around shouting
"Shit! That hurts!," you get an opportunity to take better aim.
I can imagine sticking the shotgun (pistol or short-barreled) out the hall
door and letting rip. If I hear some profanity, I can step out the doorway
and finish him off. And the horse he rode in on. And his little dog, too.
HeyBub
>
> Ooh, you stumbled on a pet peeve of mine. A couple three years ago, I
> needed to buy a drill for screwing down some deck boards. My cordless
> didn't have the oomph, and I had recently smoked my 30 YO B&D cheapie
> drilling through some 45 YO doug fir top plates to fish wiring. Seems
> like every damn drill both big-boxes had in my price range looked
> like a damn kid's toy raygun, with two-tone paint jobs, meaningless
> fins and fake cooling grilles, etc. I finally went up a notch on
> price, and found a Makita that actually looked like a frigging drill-
> one color, no fins, etc. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised-
> almost all the new cars and trucks currently on the lots look like
> gigantic 1970s Hot Wheels cars, with exaggerated cartoon styling cues
> and all sorts of pointless bumps and bulges. I guess today's
> industrial designers are drawing what they grew up with. Miles Van de
> Rohe (sp?) would be spinning in his grave.
>
But just because pistols now come in pastel pinks, teal, and even checks,
doesn't mean they don't work.
k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz
Well, that certainly is a personal judgment. I happen to think they are, if
only for the wreckage they leave around them and sometimes not just in the
immediate vicinity.
Jim Yanik
more soldiers are wearing body armor,too,so penetration has become more
important.
the earlier 5.56 round was not efficient at short ranges because it would
yaw on impact.
when they changed the projectile,they also had to change the barrel rifling
twist rate to better stabilize the new bullet.
Jim Yanik
news:2d8i171tf75c47390...@4ax.com:
Yeah,ask Randy Weaver about short-barrelled shotguns being trouble....
(Ruby Ridge/ATF-FBI fiasco)
OR,get a NFA registry stamp for a "short-barrelled shotgun",be
fingerprinted,background checked,pay the $200 tax,and be open to F-Troop
doing an unannounced inspection any time they want.
DGDevin
"HeyBub" wrote in message
news:mZ-dnWBlnYghAITT...@earthlink.com...
> Further, there is the assumed premise that these suicides are a bad thing.
As a child were you known for torturing animals?
DGDevin
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj1i09...@manx.misty.com...
> Someone self-defending home, body, life, or limb with a handgun -
> I want to be as free to do so with a .357 Magnum revolver with deadliest
> rounds, .44 magnum, whatever .45 looks intimidating, .50 "Desert Eagle",
> even .500 S&W,
I am not disputing your right to own a silly weapon for home defense, I'm
just pointing out the silliness of such a decision. Hey, a flamethrower
would be intimidating as hell and quite effective if you had to pull the
trigger, but it probably wouldn't be your best choice.
DGDevin
"Don Klipstein" wrote in message news:slrnj1hto...@manx.misty.com...
> (Then again, what is warfare?)
A continuation of politics by other means.