Andy Champ wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

In the UK we have something crazy like about 1/400 th the number of gun deaths/murders
in the USA ? Why ? At least largely because gun ownership isn't either widespread,
routine or encouraged by a gun lobby.

There has been a recent trend towards increasing (illegal) gun ownership in certain
criminal groups and that's been causing a worrying increase in deaths.

Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal guns exist it's
that much easier for illegal ownership too.

I draw my own conclusions from the way in which illegal handgun use has
soared since legal handgun ownership was banned.

No it didn't.

It's a more recent phenomenon related to a growing gang culture. In part at least I balme
American TV imports. They glamourise crime and crinimality.

Graham

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:25:09 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Unless there is a perceived need to reprocess nuclear fuel, keeping it
out of the biosphere is absurdly simple. You just 'contain' it in a safe
place !

What's absurdly simple about devising 'containment' for radioactively and
thermally hot chemicals, that must remain hermetically sealed for the order
of millions of years?

--
John Stumbles

Time flies like an arrow
Fruit flies like a banana
Tits like coconuts

In article ,
Anthony Matonak wrote:
The vast majority of gun owners, like car drivers, are fairly
responsible and not considered to be a threat to others. Your
world view may not accept this but then that's your problem.

The 'vast majority' of hand gun 'owners' in the UK are criminals. And keep
them for criminal purposes.

--
*Sometimes I wake up grumpy; Other times I let him sleep.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Jim" wrote in message
et...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Do you seriously think reducing western labour rates to a couple of
dollars a DAY would help
the poor ?

Yup. If they and everyone else are getting $150 a day anyway to do
nothing.

Tell me who gets $150 a day for doing 'nothing' ?
Sounds like the lawyer that done of one my land deeds.
You did all the running and he collected the money after you got back from
the land office,etc.

Not even the ultra-benevolent EU countries pay the unemployed that much.
It's more like $24 a day
here.

Graham, old boy; I've had enough and KF'd the bloke. It's bliss.....


Graham






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:26:13 +0000, John Stumbles wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 18:37:45 +0000, Ed Sirett wrote:

If the kit was just a couple of hundred quid (which is what it would be
if it were mass produced like radiator/pumps/time controls etc.) The may
be it would be worth me doing it. Of course that a long way from doing
for someone else.... 8-(

I think that's just what it is in Greece: you buy a package with a
collector and plumbing all connected up and stick it on your (flat) roof.
Cheap as chips over there and AFAIK not a gov't subsidy in sight.

But that's probably one of those simple thermosyphon type kits which are
used in 'hot' countries that never have weather below 0C.
We need something that frost proof so it has to be indirect and use a
frost protected working fluid.


--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html
Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


Anthony Matonak wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:

The reason why so many people die when someone brings a gun to school
or
hijacks a plane is because no one else has a weapon and they have all
been told to sit quietly and not defend themselves.

So you want to give school kids guns to defend themselves?

Perhaps only the school kids who have passed gun safety and
training classes and which have proven to be responsible and
drug free. Oh, and the teachers who have done the same. Maybe
we could start with just the responsible and drug free teachers.

It only takes one person out of an entire classroom shooting back
to stop a massacre.

Unbelievable. Ever heard of something called mental health. Or jealousy ?

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Graham
So much for your opinion of cops.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

In article ,
Arnold Walker wrote:
Unbelievable. Ever heard of something called mental health. Or
jealousy ?

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

So much for your opinion of cops.

Your cops must be superhuman if they've never shot and killed an innocent
party. Ours aren't superhuman...

--
*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:05:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we
wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them.

I'm not aware of ANYONE not fixing their cars because their value hasn't dropped
enough !


Really? you must live in a different world.

Loads of people trade in relatively new cars because its actually better
than paying to even get them serviced.

It was standard company policy in at least one place I worked.

I wonder whether this practise is only common with company cars.
However, if a £20,000 car loses 1/2 its value in 3 years that is a
loss of £10,000. I can't believe it costs this much to service it.

Maybe we should tax them more heavily?

M

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:01:34 -0500, Bob Adkins
wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 22:23:53 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:


Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal guns exist it's
that much easier for illegal ownership too.


There's an old saying here that "guns make a polite society".

It all depends on who carries the guns. If nice people carry the guns,
it makes society safer. If thugs carry guns, it makes society more
dangerous.

We have this stupid politically correct view that everyone has the
same rights. If we don't want convicted felons to carry guns, then we
foolishly take away everyone's right to carry guns. That punishes the
good people in order to punish the bad. Phooey on that. Everyone
should have the right to bear arms until he proves that he is not
worthy of that right. We do have the right to discriminate against
thugs and outlaws.

So they can carry arms until they've shot someone - great idea!

M

On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 14:48:59 +0100, Eeyore
wrote:



The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Bob Adkins wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal guns exist it's
that much easier for illegal ownership too.


There's an old saying here that "guns make a polite society".

It all depends on who carries the guns. If nice people carry the guns,
it makes society safer. If thugs carry guns, it makes society more
dangerous.

We have this stupid politically correct view that everyone has the
same rights. If we don't want convicted felons to carry guns, then we
foolishly take away everyone's right to carry guns. That punishes the
good people in order to punish the bad. Phooey on that. Everyone
should have the right to bear arms until he proves that he is not
worthy of that right. We do have the right to discriminate against
thugs and outlaws.


Its solved here by making handguns totally illegal - though that is a
shame, as single chamber target guns would be OK..and rifles and
shotguns only available to those who can demonstrate they need them for
hunting.

Automatic weapons of all types are totally illegal.

This makes it easy. No one can claim they need a gun for self defence as
no one can legally use one against them. Anyone caught possessing a
handgun is de facto criminal. Likewise automatic weapons.

Sadly ammunition is not so well regulated. Its harder to make ammo than
it is to make a gun to use it. Especially if you start from a semi
functional repro gun.

Peol;e who use guns here, are subject to yearly visits to teh police to
renew licenses, and somne very strict guidelines in their use. Breach of
those means no license and firearms confiscated. One of the chief
conditions is lockable gun cabinets. Ad no weapons to be carried in cars
except out of reach.

Ok this is a small island, and anyine banging off a gun at anyy pojt
above teh horizon is likley to have a good chance of hittng DSOMEONE. So
it makes a bit of sense.

The USA though - far too casual. There is no excuse for allowing
citizens to carry anti-personnel weapons without license or limitation.

If the right to bear arms was limited to rifles only, and shotguns,
things would be a lot safer.

Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are the problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an anti-person weapon.

Shotguns can easily be used as "anti-person" weapons. The
modification is simple.

M

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:42:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

In the UK we have something crazy like about 1/400 th the number of
gun deaths/murders
in the USA ? Why ? At least largely because gun ownership isn't either
widespread,
routine or encouraged by a gun lobby.

There has been a recent trend towards increasing (illegal) gun
ownership in certain
criminal groups and that's been causing a worrying increase in deaths.

Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal
guns exist it's
that much easier for illegal ownership too.

Graham



I draw my own conclusions from the way in which illegal handgun use has
soared since legal handgun ownership was banned.


In the same way that global warming has soared since Piracy went into
decline?

And UK sport went into decline once we had Nu Laber, and now seems to b
picking up again slightly, as they go into terminal decline?

Is it picking up again? That's good news, but I hadn't noticed ;-)

M

Anthony Matonak wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:
It only takes one person out of an entire classroom shooting back
to stop a massacre.

Unbelievable. Ever heard of something called mental health. Or jealousy ?
NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Nothing in this world, people, animals, pianos, cell phones, is so
completely safe that they can never, ever, under any weird set of
bizarre circumstances, harm you.

However the ones whose main purpose IS harming you,or whose instant
misuse is extremely dangerous, are restricted.


If complete safety is your desire in life then you need to lock
yourself away in a padded cell right now because you're probably
your own worst enemy.

The vast majority of gun owners, like car drivers, are fairly
responsible and not considered to be a threat to others. Your
world view may not accept this but then that's your problem.


Does the USA not have driving licenses and at least some certificate of
competency to drive?

Is there a gun license with equal competency required?

Are schoolkids encouraged as one poster here has it, to take cars into
school to defend themselves from other cars?

Your comparison is entirely valid: Your conclusions are not.


Anthony

"Jim" wrote in message
et...

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind
Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no
immediate danger
Tell that to to N Orleans.

The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.
Actually was a small part of a bigger problem in New Orleans,that had folks
bailing like rats off a sinking ship.
For 25 years,before the straw that broke the camels back....Kitrina.
Never seen any storm victims like the folks we housed from New Orleans.
Most other storm victims, in times past were thankful for what they could
get.
And fairly peaceful .
That was not the case with New Orlean victims.......drugs ,vandalism,you
name it to the point .
That you were seeing schools,churches ,and even home security throwing them
out.
Some at the time ,had stayed in motels for 6months without getting a job or
much of anything.
When the government started clearing out motel rooms, that needed remodeling
after they left.
Some of them victims would probaly still be living in them motel rooms and
collecting food stamps
,if we let them.The thought never occured to that group ,that when things
happen someone other than the government does something.Like you making at
least a token effort at fixing your own life.
The damage from vandalism by the 500 victims staying here was $250,000 ,by
the time the chuches,schools ($43,000
of it was done to schoolclass rooms in two weeks while the schools sorted
them out to other shelter locations), and motels repaired the damage. And we
are talking just vanadalism expense ,not food,clothing ,and shelter like a
"normal" victims would have. By the time it was over, more than a few of us,
were wondering at the definition of victim.

I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?

have you ever been to NOLA?




It was pure LUCK that N.O. hadn't been struck by a 'Katrina' before and
their luck
finally ran out. If you live in an area that's prone to hurricanes
you're taking
risks. The poor workmanship finished the job.

'event cascade'

It was a combination.

How many timber frame houses in the USA will be destroyed by tornadoes,
if tornado frequency and intensity goes up 30%..?

How many more square mile of land will be flooded if PEAK storm rainfall
goes up 30%?, on average..

and so on.

Graham






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Anthony Matonak wrote:
The vast majority of gun owners, like car drivers, are fairly
responsible and not considered to be a threat to others. Your
world view may not accept this but then that's your problem.

The 'vast majority' of hand gun 'owners' in the UK are criminals. And keep
them for criminal purposes.


And the rest are licensed ,after showing they have a need to own them.
and are responsible enough to do so.

Huge wrote:
On 2007-10-18, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
...
The obsession with the 'right to bear arms' is a truly weird American
thing.
No matter how 'nice' people may appear to be, gun ownership leads to
gun crime.
Sure, just like knife ownership leads to knife crime and car
ownership leads to running people over with cars.
You can do other things with cars and knives.

There is nothing a handgun is good for except killing people.

Wrong.

Ok what else is it good for?

That is its primary function. It s NOT a target weapon: that is normally
restricted to specialized .22 caliber guns.

Wrong.


Proof by assertion is not alid argument.

Still posting the nonsense, then.



And ad hominems are the mark of the intellectually challenged.

John Stumbles wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 20:25:09 +0100, Eeyore wrote:

Unless there is a perceived need to reprocess nuclear fuel, keeping it
out of the biosphere is absurdly simple. You just 'contain' it in a safe
place !

What's absurdly simple about devising 'containment' for radioactively and
thermally hot chemicals, that must remain hermetically sealed for the order
of millions of years?


Reinforced concrete and a lot of the earths crust.

In fact nature only uses the latter..

You will find that e.g. Dartmoor is a fairly illegal place to live. If
that was somewhere that someone had dumped waste to the level of
radioactivity it dipslay, there would be a huge scandal.

Because God did it, its all right allegedly.

Mark wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:05:57 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we
wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them.
I'm not aware of ANYONE not fixing their cars because their value hasn't dropped
enough !

Really? you must live in a different world.

Loads of people trade in relatively new cars because its actually better
than paying to even get them serviced.

It was standard company policy in at least one place I worked.

I wonder whether this practise is only common with company cars.
However, if a £20,000 car loses 1/2 its value in 3 years that is a
loss of £10,000. I can't believe it costs this much to service it.


No, but it costs something. A typical sales rep will do up to 60,000
miles in a year.

Often the cars are sold after one year, never having even had the oil
checked.

Or after two with just an oil top up.

It's less the cost of the car or he service, so much as simply the
hassle of getting it done. Ad teh loss of a days 'trips'

If you are car pool manager, or the gy in charge of compny cars, its
much easier to do a fixed price deal on e.g. contract hire and write off
the total cost,than buy and sell and service cars, as well.


Maybe we should tax them more heavily?


They already are.
Tax the fuel as well.



M

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 09:08:17 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be Ed
Sirett wrote this:-

I think that's just what it is in Greece: you buy a package with a
collector and plumbing all connected up and stick it on your (flat) roof.
Cheap as chips over there and AFAIK not a gov't subsidy in sight.

But that's probably one of those simple thermosyphon type kits which are
used in 'hot' countries that never have weather below 0C.
We need something that frost proof so it has to be indirect and use a
frost protected working fluid.

That is one option. Another option is to use a controller which will
circulate water enough to keep the sensitive parts of the collector
from freezing. This could be say five minutes an hour. This does
reduce the temperature of the store a little, but it may be an
appropriate option in some circumstances.

Another option is to let it freeze, the approach taken by Solartwin.
It is unlikely to remain frozen for long during the day.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"Jim" wrote in message
et...

"Eeyore" wrote in message
...


The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:

(c) the consequences could be disastrous for all humankind
Potential consequences in hundreds of years time. There is no
immediate danger
Tell that to to N Orleans.

The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.

I guess teh rain and storms urges were simply no relevant then?

If the defences had been built properly ... NO.

I have been there, and you are only partially correct. Some of it was
unavoidable, but the areas inside the levees in the city of NOLA proper,
were largely dmgd by incompetence, but the area subsides at about 3mm per
annum, so it will be moot soon anyways......
Which might be the reason much of the rebuilding is on high ground.not in
the soupbowl.
Like the political figures seem to want....taxes revenues have been on a
major decline due to
lack of residents in some areas.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Mark wrote:

If the right to bear arms was limited to rifles only, and shotguns,
things would be a lot safer.
Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are the problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an anti-person weapon.

Shotguns can easily be used as "anti-person" weapons. The
modification is simple.


Indeed, BUT they are less than ideal, and they do have other valid uses,
and are hard to conceal unless sawn off, and a sawn off shotgun is ipso
facto a very serious thing to have in your possession.

M

Mark wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:42:23 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Andy Champ wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
In the UK we have something crazy like about 1/400 th the number of
gun deaths/murders
in the USA ? Why ? At least largely because gun ownership isn't either
widespread,
routine or encouraged by a gun lobby.

There has been a recent trend towards increasing (illegal) gun
ownership in certain
criminal groups and that's been causing a worrying increase in deaths.

Draw your own conclusions. Guns don't make you safe. And where legal
guns exist it's
that much easier for illegal ownership too.

Graham


I draw my own conclusions from the way in which illegal handgun use has
soared since legal handgun ownership was banned.

In the same way that global warming has soared since Piracy went into
decline?

And UK sport went into decline once we had Nu Laber, and now seems to b
picking up again slightly, as they go into terminal decline?

Is it picking up again? That's good news, but I hadn't noticed ;-)


There is a chance that by the weekend, we may have an F1 world champion
and be the top bananas in Rugby: Why even UK football is slightly better
since the bull****ting swede vanished.

M

Huge wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Why is it that the moment the subject of guns comes up, so many people lose the
power of rational thought?

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people. They have no legitimate
role, least of all being carried on the person, in a civilised society. Of course
it may be that USA doesn't qualify as a civilised society. That would explain a
lot.

Get real.

Graham

Huge wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Huge wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

No matter how 'nice' people may appear to be, gun ownership leads to gun crime.

Sigh.

One word.

Switzerland.

Gun ownership in Switzerland is not as widespread as the gun lobby likes to make out. A lot
of them are militrary rifles too, not handguns.

Whoosh! Just *look* at those goalposts move!

Rifles are a whole different story. For one thing they can't be concealed. They also have
perfectly legitimate uses in vermin control, hunting and the like.

Graham

John Stumbles wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

Unless there is a perceived need to reprocess nuclear fuel, keeping it
out of the biosphere is absurdly simple. You just 'contain' it in a safe
place !

What's absurdly simple about devising 'containment' for radioactively and
thermally hot chemicals, that must remain hermetically sealed for the order
of millions of years?

They don't need to be *hermetically* sealed. Just kept in a cool dry
environment. We fret excessively over used reactor rods.

Graham

Anthony Matonak wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:
It only takes one person out of an entire classroom shooting back
to stop a massacre.

Unbelievable. Ever heard of something called mental health. Or jealousy ?
NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Nothing in this world, people, animals, pianos, cell phones, is so
completely safe that they can never, ever, under any weird set of
bizarre circumstances, harm you.

Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm people. They
have no other function.

Graahm

Anthony Matonak wrote:

John Stumbles wrote:
Eeyore wrote:

Unless there is a perceived need to reprocess nuclear fuel, keeping it
out of the biosphere is absurdly simple. You just 'contain' it in a safe
place !

What's absurdly simple about devising 'containment' for radioactively and
thermally hot chemicals, that must remain hermetically sealed for the order
of millions of years?

They don't have to remain sealed for millions of years. I think most of
the stuff only needs to be stored for a few thousand years at most and
the worst stuff is pretty safe after a few hundred.

I think even a few tens of years calms the stuff down quite a lot.

Graham

Huge wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:

The vast majority of gun owners, like car drivers, are fairly
responsible and not considered to be a threat to others. Your
world view may not accept this but then that's your problem.

The 'vast majority' of hand gun 'owners' in the UK are criminals.

An argument so circular that I'm surprised it isn't in a vault in Paris
somewhere, along with the standard kilogram and metre.

It's not an argument, circular or otherwise. It's a FACT.

Besides, gun ownership has never been a popular desire for educated civilised
people anyway. Besides, what would I want one for ?

There was a documentary I saw about a teenage ? girl who moved from the USA to
live with her family on an air base in Britain. She was frightened out in public
because our police don't carry guns. It apparently had never ocurred to her that
there can be a society where the public don't go around in daily fear of armed
criminals and that the police don't NEED guns in their normal everday work !
It's a sad reflection on the violence endemic in US society.

Graham

Arnold Walker wrote:

"Eeyore" wrote
Anthony Matonak wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:

The reason why so many people die when someone brings a gun to school
or hijacks a plane is because no one else has a weapon and they have all
been told to sit quietly and not defend themselves.

So you want to give school kids guns to defend themselves?

Perhaps only the school kids who have passed gun safety and
training classes and which have proven to be responsible and
drug free. Oh, and the teachers who have done the same. Maybe
we could start with just the responsible and drug free teachers.

It only takes one person out of an entire classroom shooting back
to stop a massacre.

Unbelievable. Ever heard of something called mental health. Or jealousy ?

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

So much for your opinion of cops.

Strange comment but yes, that sheriff's deputy went on a gun rampage recently too. That
was jealousy wasn't it ?

Graham

Mark wrote:

Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

The USA though - far too casual. There is no excuse for allowing
citizens to carry anti-personnel weapons without license or limitation.

If the right to bear arms was limited to rifles only, and shotguns,
things would be a lot safer.

Sounds entirely rational to me. It is indeed the handguns that are the problem and there
can be no valid reason for those as anything other than an anti-person weapon.

Shotguns can easily be used as "anti-person" weapons. The
modification is simple.

Shotguns are rather less readily concealed thankfully.

Ownership (or even possession of) of a 'modified' shotgun (or any illegal firearm imho) ought
to carry an automatic 20+ year jail sentence. A second offence resulting in life. That might
help.

Graham

Huge wrote:
On 2007-10-19, Eeyore wrote:



NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.


Why is it that the moment the subject of guns comes up, so many people lose the
power of rational thought?


Because maybe most sane people know irrational people feel the need to
carry them.

Arnold Walker wrote:

Eeyore wrote:

The flooding of New Orleans was due to defective flood defences.

Actually was a small part of a bigger problem in New Orleans,that had folks
bailing like rats off a sinking ship.
For 25 years,before the straw that broke the camels back....Kitrina.
Never seen any storm victims like the folks we housed from New Orleans.
Most other storm victims, in times past were thankful for what they could
get.
And fairly peaceful .
That was not the case with New Orlean victims.......drugs ,vandalism,you
name it to the point .
That you were seeing schools,churches ,and even home security throwing them
out.
Some at the time ,had stayed in motels for 6months without getting a job or
much of anything.
When the government started clearing out motel rooms, that needed remodeling
after they left.
Some of them victims would probaly still be living in them motel rooms and
collecting food stamps
,if we let them.The thought never occured to that group ,that when things
happen someone other than the government does something.Like you making at
least a token effort at fixing your own life.
The damage from vandalism by the 500 victims staying here was $250,000 ,by
the time the chuches,schools ($43,000
of it was done to schoolclass rooms in two weeks while the schools sorted
them out to other shelter locations), and motels repaired the damage. And we
are talking just vanadalism expense ,not food,clothing ,and shelter like a
"normal" victims would have. By the time it was over, more than a few of us,
were wondering at the definition of victim.

Sorry to hear that.

Dare I ask if it was the vandalistic behaviour was colour/race related or maybe simply
a 'social class' issue ?

Graham

On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 04:17:55 -0500, Arnold Walker wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.
So much for your opinion of cops.

In the UK we have had an unarmed man shot dead by armed police on an
underground railway station, an unarmed and naked man shot dead by armed
police in his bedroom, an elderly man recovering from a cancer operation
shot dead by armed police who decided that the table leg he was carrying
was a firearm, and other similar cases.

--
John Stumbles

Extreme moderate

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mark wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Eeyore wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Suddenly, when a two year old car is 1/3rd the price of a new one, we
wouldn't be changing em every two years..we would FIX them.
I'm not aware of ANYONE not fixing their cars because their value hasn't dropped
enough !

Really? you must live in a different world.

Loads of people trade in relatively new cars because its actually better
than paying to even get them serviced.

It was standard company policy in at least one place I worked.

I wonder whether this practise is only common with company cars.
However, if a £20,000 car loses 1/2 its value in 3 years that is a
loss of £10,000. I can't believe it costs this much to service it.

No, but it costs something. A typical sales rep will do up to 60,000
miles in a year.

Often the cars are sold after one year, never having even had the oil
checked.

Are you suggesting they don't get any servicing at all ? That would void any warranty
and not be in the owner's (company's) interest.

All the company cars I've known about have standard routine service interval attention.

I dare say an engine would sieze on 60,000 mile old oil. At least the way the reps drive
them !

Graham

Eeyore wrote:

The sole purpose of a handgun is to kill or main people.

Wrong.

They have no legitimate role, least of all being carried on the person, in
a civilised society.

Also wrong.

This country used to be a regular Olympic Gold winner in the pistol
shooting events until brain dead ****wits like you ensured that it is
impossible to train for the sport in the UK. It's also amusing that
every entrant in the pistol shooting events at the 2012 Olypics will be
breaking the law.

They hypocrites in the government will, no doubt, arrange for a blind
eye to be turned.

Hansard 18 Jul 2005 : Column WA196

Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will revoke the ban which prevents licensed and
supervised .22 pistol shooters from training in the United Kingdom so
that British sport shooters will be able to prepare for the London
Olympic Games in 2012 without having to travel abroad. [HL1078]

Lord Davies of Oldham: The Home Office does not propose to repeal the
ban on the private possession of handguns. Special arrangements will be
put in place to allow pistol shooting events at the 2012 Olympics as
happened at the 2002 Commonwealth Games. These arrangements will include
a warm up event if this is deemed necessary.

Eeyore wrote:

Guns are unique in the above that their sole PURPOSE is to harm people. They
have no other function.

Drivel, pure and simple.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Mark wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And UK sport went into decline once we had Nu Laber, and now seems to b
picking up again slightly, as they go into terminal decline?

Is it picking up again? That's good news, but I hadn't noticed ;-)


There is a chance that by the weekend, we may have an F1 world champion

Don't speak too soon after the screw-up in China ! It would be great if Lewis
could do it though. After his outrageous behaviour, Alonso doesn't even deserve
2nd.

Graham

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Why even UK football is slightly better
since the bull****ting swede vanished.

It'll be better still when they get paid 10% or less of the insane salaries they
get now.

Graham

John Stumbles wrote:

Arnold Walker wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.
So much for your opinion of cops.

In the UK we have had an unarmed man shot dead by armed police on an
underground railway station, an unarmed and naked man shot dead by armed
police in his bedroom, an elderly man recovering from a cancer operation
shot dead by armed police who decided that the table leg he was carrying
was a firearm, and other similar cases.

Under tense situations, mistakes are easily made. With a gun, those mistakes may
be terminal. Anguish won't bring back the dead.

Graham

"Anthony Matonak" wrote in message
...
Eeyore wrote:
Anthony Matonak wrote:
It only takes one person out of an entire classroom shooting back
to stop a massacre.

Unbelievable. Ever heard of something called mental health. Or jealousy ?
NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.

Nothing in this world, people, animals, pianos, cell phones, is so
completely safe that they can never, ever, under any weird set of
bizarre circumstances, harm you.

If complete safety is your desire in life then you need to lock
yourself away in a padded cell right now because you're probably
your own worst enemy.

The vast majority of gun owners, like car drivers, are fairly
responsible and not considered to be a threat to others. Your
world view may not accept this but then that's your problem.

Sounds like a brainwashed American obsessed with guns. They are beyond
redemption. We don't have them, even the police are not armed here. Look
at the death rate through gunshot here and in the US then it is clear we are
doing the right thing by banning the things and even tightening up laws to
keep them off the streets. You can get 5 years for just being in possession
of a gun. You can get jail if you have a replica too. Guns are meant to
"kill" people.

Eeyore wrote:

John Stumbles wrote:

Arnold Walker wrote:

NO_ONE with a gun can be considered safe.
So much for your opinion of cops.

In the UK we have had an unarmed man shot dead by armed police on an
underground railway station, an unarmed and naked man shot dead by armed
police in his bedroom, an elderly man recovering from a cancer operation
shot dead by armed police who decided that the table leg he was carrying
was a firearm, and other similar cases.

Under tense situations, mistakes are easily made. With a gun, those
mistakes may be terminal.

Three women shot dead by police since 1985.

Anguish won't bring back the dead.

Oh, so by your book it's OK for the police to gun down unarmed civilians
but it's folly for citizens to enjoy the hobby of shooting at targets
under controlled and regulated conditions?