On 12/29/2012 1:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:02:17 -0500, wrote:



Up here in "Canukistan" our motor vehicle insurance is "no-fault" -
so even if the other moron has no insurance you are covered. Your
insurance company goes after his ass for you. No recoverable assets?
He'll never drive, legally, again. He will be uninsureable.

I bet that has done a lot to keep law breakers off the road too.

It is truly a dumb law if the guy really wants to comply and reform in
the future, he is now forced to drive illegally. Smart thinking.

You also need proof of insurance to buy a new car or to get plates
renewed annually, not to say someone couldn't borrow somebody's car but.....

--
Froz...


The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:28:07 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Dave wrote in news:a96td85pab7lsmqfpdvprvbika71ulqbij@
4ax.com:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 13:25:26 -0500, wrote:
Black market guns coming FROM CANADA? - extremely few.

In fact, it's EXACTLY the opposite. A significant amount of guns in
Canada come from the US.


I'm curious -- do you have a cite for that? I thought that Canada had pretty strict controls over
importing firearms.
We do have. But border enforcement is spotty, and we have a pretty
wide-open border between the northwestern states and the prairie
provinces - as well as a large "maritime" boarder bounded by the great
lakes. LEGAL imports of firearms are strictly enforced. - and
limited. Illegal imports from the USA are MUCH easier than imports
from europe or asia.
Legan gun POSESSION in Canada is quite restricted and controlled - so
where are all these illegal weapons coming FROM Canada coming
from???????
Getting guns in the USA and shipping them to Canada is a LOT simpler -
and the financial incentive is a lot higher too, as you cannot simply
walk into a hardware store, Walmart, or whatever and buy a cheap gun
in Canada like you can in the USA. You also have FAR more gun
manufacturers (armouries) in the USA that sell to the public.nThe few
gun manufacturers in Canada generally ONLY sell to the military and
police forces of both Canada and the USA and other NATO countries.

Pretty hard to find one for sale here in Canada.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:26:32 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 07:21:41 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 22:41:53 -0500, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 11:58:08 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:



We haven't and we won't. Every single home in Switzerland has a rifle
and handgun and every citizen is trained in their use. What's their
gun crime rate? GUNS don't cause crime, they prevent it.

No it is not the GUNS that prevent crime. It is the education and
training that reduce crime. Those guns are properly stored too.

If you pull out a gun in front of a criminal, they'll flee. This
doesn't take education or training, though most concealed weapons
permit owners have both.


They will either flee or you (or they) will be dead. If you pull a
gun, you need to be ready and willing to use it. and DEAD SURE that
you can defend your use of deadly force in a court of law.

I think that a civilian using a firearm in self defense should be held
to the same standard as a cop who does so. That is to say a board of
his buddies should review the shooting and if they decide that it was
"righteous" then he's off the hook. Either that or every time a cop
shoots somebody let a jury decided whether he was justified.

What is a jury other than "a board of his buddies", In Canada it IS
a civilian review board that investigates not only police shooting
fatalities, but EVERY TIME an officer even UNHOLSTERS his gun while on
duty. If that gun is DRAWN, there is an investigation - and the
officer can be reprimanded, fined, demoted, or otherwise sanctioned if
it was deamed improper.

Yes, the fact that everybody knows every home is armed may act as a
deterrent to crimes against property - but those guns are NOT carried
and the general citizenry walking on the streets or driving in their
cars is NOT armed.

Right, but thosee approached by criminals on the street who show a
weapon are usually not victims. The criminals, generally, wisely
choose not to screw with them. This is called "an unfired gun
preventing a crime" in our country. Do you disagree?

There are significant numbers of cases where someone, known to be
armed (by showing the weapon as a deterrent), is then killed "from
behind" shortly after. Perticularly in "gang related" shootings - even
if the guy shot is NOT gang involved.

There are? Please state your source.

Get into a conflict with a
gang-banger and count on the showing of a gun as a deterent??? Count
on being dead shortly. If not immediately, courtesy of one of his
armed friends. Having a gun is NO guarantee you will not be shot -
and a pretty good incentive for a criminal targetting you to KILL you
before you can get him.

Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
not be shot. You claim that being shot is a likely outcome of being
armed and showing a weapon, state your source.

Check the shooting statistics in Toronto. Other than "ionnocent
bystanders" a large percentage of gunshot victioms are, themselves,
armed. Mind you, here in Canada, if you are armed on the street and
not a cop, you are pretty much by definition a criminal.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
ain.local...


Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
not be shot.

That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
America when he was shot...

Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of weapons
substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
either.

This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality
about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
grandmother, "The masses is asses."

If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
crime?????

A sabre cuts both ways.

One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too is
often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will be
coming up for debate:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Of particular interest is this section:
a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National
Firearms Act, to include:
a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms classified
as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as fully-automatic
firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block they
report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a denial...
John

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:32:25 -0500, wrote:

On 28 Dec 2012 12:40:34 GMT, Han wrote:

"Mike Marlow" wrote in news:kbi9p2$mqs$1
:

Han wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in
:

Han wrote:

I don't know the particulars. How did the thieves know of this?
How did they know that he was going away for that long? If he has
"many"(?) guns in a large safe, why didn't he have an alarm system?
Those items come into the judgement of his degree of responsibility
or lack of it. How soon did he notify the police? Did he have
liability insurance?

What in the world does him having or not having liability insurance
have to do with it Han?

Mike, if I had a firearm, I'd want to be covered for all eventualities
associated with it. Since a firearm is probably at least as
dangerous as an automobile, a responsible owner would carry liability
insurance. I would count it against an individual if he didn't carry
that insurance.

I am sorry Han, but that just does not make any sense.

Is this clearer, Mike? If I had my druthers, it would be required for
gun owners to have liability insurance covering the weapons.
I agree one hundred percent. Minimum 2 million dollars liability
coverage to be allowed to have a gun on the premises - 5 million to
carry.
Rifle range (gun club) insurance covers guns never removed from the
range (sport/competition).

If a gun is stolen and used in a crime, the owner's liability
insurance covers the first $2million in damages. If your kid uses the
gun and does damage, likewize. Owner responsible for any overages
unless the theft is reported to proper authorities within 24 hours.
That would make gun owners more likely to make sure their guns were
properly secured and stored.

The insurance companies would set the premiums based on risk /loss
ratios.

..ca doesn't get a vote.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:25:24 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:35:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Here, the policies cover LEGAL activities (quoting
http://nfa.ca/nfa-insurance):

Do you want to know WHY that insurance is so cheap up here? It's
because there are so few gun owners and guns are significantly more
controlled than down in the US. That means the chance of something
happening on a gun range is much less.

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in the US,
insurance rates would be much higher.

Unbelievable.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:43:58 -0500, FrozenNorth
wrote:

On 12/29/2012 1:39 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:02:17 -0500, wrote:



Up here in "Canukistan" our motor vehicle insurance is "no-fault" -
so even if the other moron has no insurance you are covered. Your
insurance company goes after his ass for you. No recoverable assets?
He'll never drive, legally, again. He will be uninsureable.

I bet that has done a lot to keep law breakers off the road too.

It is truly a dumb law if the guy really wants to comply and reform in
the future, he is now forced to drive illegally. Smart thinking.

You also need proof of insurance to buy a new car or to get plates
renewed annually, not to say someone couldn't borrow somebody's car but.....

Sure, but insurance can be cancelled the next day. That's the problem
in Alabama, where something like 1/4 of all drivers are uninsured,
despite the laws against driving without insurance.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
main.local...


Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
not be shot.

That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
America when he was shot...

Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of
weapons
substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
either.

This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality
about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
grandmother, "The masses is asses."

If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
crime?????

Their belief is supported by the ever growing body of academic research...
as well as failed social experiments. See Joyce Malcom's article in the WSJ
for a summary of the failed social experiments. More on this appears in her
book
"Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...446855466.html

If the site asks you to sign in use Yahoo and search on "Joyce Malcom WSJ."
You can usually get to the articles via a search engine.

John

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...


Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
not be shot.

That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
America when he was shot...

Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of weapons
substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
either.

This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality
about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
grandmother, "The masses is asses."

One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too is
often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will be
coming up for debate:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Of particular interest is this section:
a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National
Firearms Act, to include:
a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms classified
as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as fully-automatic
firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block they
report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a denial...
John

Lets hope that there is still enough common sense in the new Congress to
tell her to put a sock in it.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too
is
often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will
be
coming up for debate:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Of particular interest is this section:
a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the
National
Firearms Act, to include:
a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms
classified
as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as
fully-automatic
firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block
they
report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a
denial...
John

Lets hope that there is still enough common sense in the new Congress to
tell her to put a sock in it.

Perhaps they need to be reminded that weapons substitution is, and has been
a reality for a long long time...

http://www.giftbasketsfrommichigan.c...chool-bombing/

John

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"

If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
crime?????

Here is another shooting a couple days after Newton... one that barely made
the news because the attacker was gunned down by security. It seems that
lives saved aren't as newsworthy...

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/loc...ut-4123414.php

There is positive utility for guns in our society, especially because the
good people outnumber the bad.

John

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too
is
often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will
be
coming up for debate:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

Of particular interest is this section:
a.. Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the
National
Firearms Act, to include:
a.. Background check of owner and any transferee;
b.. Type and serial number of the firearm;
c.. Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
d.. Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
e.. Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration.
What this means is that currently owned semi-automatic firearms
classified
as "assault weapons" under this law would need to be registered (read
licensed and potentially taxed) under the same procedures as
fully-automatic
firearms. The NFA currently calls for a $200 transfer tax for full auto
weapons... plus approval of local law enforcement. I have associates in
non-NY states who own Class III weapons and the biggest stumbling block
they
report is the local law enforcement. They don't have to justify a
denial...
John

Lets hope that there is still enough common sense in the new Congress to
tell her to put a sock in it.

Perhaps they need to be reminded that weapons substitution is, and has been
a reality for a long long time...

http://www.giftbasketsfrommichigan.c...chool-bombing/

Thinking about it, I would faver the Feinstein bill if it was modified
in a few ways. First, a clause providing Federal preemption on all NFA
firearms--if you pass the Federal check you are not subject to state or
local bans, second, a clause providing that passing the stringent
Federal background check automatically qualifies one for CCW in all
states, third, that having passed the check once one may purchase an
unlimited quantity of NFA firearms provided that one pays the tax on
each, fourth, a clear statement of the disqualfying criteria that does
not provide room for personal animosity or personal opposition to the
ownership of firearms, and fifth, an oversight organization placed on
top of the ATF that is not answerable to the ATF chain of command but
that does have the power to terminate any ATF employee at any time on
finding of improper action.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...



http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons


Thinking about it, I would faver the Feinstein bill if it was modified
in a few ways. First, a clause providing Federal preemption on all NFA
firearms--if you pass the Federal check you are not subject to state or
local bans, second, a clause providing that passing the stringent
Federal background check automatically qualifies one for CCW in all
states, third, that having passed the check once one may purchase an
unlimited quantity of NFA firearms provided that one pays the tax on
each, fourth, a clear statement of the disqualfying criteria that does
not provide room for personal animosity or personal opposition to the
ownership of firearms, and fifth, an oversight organization placed on
top of the ATF that is not answerable to the ATF chain of command but
that does have the power to terminate any ATF employee at any time on
finding of improper action.

Christmas was LAST week... but I like your thinking!

John

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 17:05:30 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
ain.local...
In article ,
says...



http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons


Thinking about it, I would faver the Feinstein bill if it was modified
in a few ways. First, a clause providing Federal preemption on all NFA
firearms--if you pass the Federal check you are not subject to state or
local bans, second, a clause providing that passing the stringent
Federal background check automatically qualifies one for CCW in all
states, third, that having passed the check once one may purchase an
unlimited quantity of NFA firearms provided that one pays the tax on
each, fourth, a clear statement of the disqualfying criteria that does
not provide room for personal animosity or personal opposition to the
ownership of firearms, and fifth, an oversight organization placed on
top of the ATF that is not answerable to the ATF chain of command but
that does have the power to terminate any ATF employee at any time on
finding of improper action.

Christmas was LAST week... but I like your thinking!

John
Easter is coming - ask the Easter Bunny.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
ain.local...


Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
not be shot.

That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
America when he was shot...

Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of weapons
substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
either.

That's absolutely true. And throwing good money after bad in trying
to protect from the unprotectable is downright assinine.



This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
would see the folly of this...

I liked this column: http://tinyurl.com/bu9fadb
Louis Woodhill
The Sandy Hook Horror Begs Us To Have The Courage To Do Nothing

I just realized that I hadn't finished reading this one, but it, too
started out good. http://tinyurl.com/cgqbghy
Dan McLaughlin
Gun Control, Gun Rights, Gun Politics and Newtown: Part I of II
(I haven't found part II yet.)

But there is also a public opinion reality
about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
grandmother, "The masses is asses."

Har! Good one.


One would hope that our elected officials are not asses... but that too is
often folly so "something" will be done. Here is an example of what will be
coming up for debate:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/publ...ssault-weapons

I certainly hope her karma catches up to her while we can still watch
it.

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 14:35:27 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 10:30:08 -0500, "John Grossbohlin"
wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message
omain.local...


Wearing full body armor, riding in an armored vehicle, and surrounding
yourself with highly trained armed guards is no guarantee that you will
not be shot.

That is for sure... Ronald Reagan was probably the most protected man in
America when he was shot...

Not much can stop a goal oriented attacker... and with the option of
weapons
substitution, a worldwide total elimination of guns wouldn't stop them
either.

This reality leaves people feeling somewhat helpless so doing something,
regardless of how ill conceived that something may be, is deemed to be
better than doing nothing. A thoughtful society with thoughtful leaders
would see the folly of this... But there is also a public opinion reality
about which a sociologist associate of mine is fond of quoting his
grandmother, "The masses is asses."

If that is true - that the "masses is asses" what does that say about
the large segment of American society that believes guns reduce
crime?????

Their belief is supported by the ever growing body of academic research...
as well as failed social experiments. See Joyce Malcom's article in the WSJ
for a summary of the failed social experiments. More on this appears in her
book
"Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...446855466.html

Interesting article. I hope our US, CA, and Brit gun-banners read it.


If the site asks you to sign in use Yahoo and search on "Joyce Malcom WSJ."
You can usually get to the articles via a search engine.

If I had lived in England when Clarke was sentenced for turning in a
shotgun, I'd have emigrated out of that country the very same day, or
as soon as my passport was ready. FTN!

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:49:10 -0800, Mike M
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:59:35 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Business insurance has cost me between $750 and $1,200 per year for
half a million liability, and that's with zero claims against it. They
want to double it if I do roofing or framing. You have it lucky up
there in Canuckistan. Hell, our ins guys want almost $10 for a
zeroxed copy of our own policy.

I haven't worked since I got hurt in 2009, but I wish my insurance was
that cheap. I'm just one state north of you and I had 2 million with
another 1 million umbrella policy. I paid $24,000 per year in 2008
for business insurance. Now I did have 2 bucket trucks, a boom truck,
6 vans, a box truck, and a pickup. I also had 8-10 employees and was
doing commercial industrial electrical work but man that seems cheap
for your insurance cost. My contracts usually had 4-8 clauses just to
deal with insurance and indemnification.

Yeah, everything in your biz reeks of risk. I'm glad handymanning
doesn't carry that insurance price. But I'm required to have a
contractor's license and continuing education to do work here. That
and insurance/bonding bring me up to several grand every 2 years.


On the other hand the guy
who ran me down only had 100K in insurance which covered my first 5
days of hospital time. I guess what I paid was worth it as I was able
to collect on the underinsured motorist part of the policy.

Wouldn't you like to find him some night in a dark alley, perhaps with
a loose 440V line in your gloved hand? "Here, hold this."

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:40:31 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 02:29:46 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:42:10 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Guns, illegal aliens, and terrorists are streaming in from CA to the
USA daily. Bet on it. Lots of black market items come up the St.
Lawrence and into both our countries through the Great Lakes.

You're full of crap. Some maybe, but certainly not in the numbers your
feeble mind apparently likes to imagine.

Numbers? I mentioned no numbers, Uppy. Now who's fantasizing?
No need to answer. I only saw your post because clare quoted you.
You're filtered from me (for obvious reasons) on this end.


If you're going to come up with this bull****, at least post some
verifiable stats to back it up.

http://www.csis-scrs.gc.ca/prrts/trrrsm/index-eng.asp quickie


Correct. WAY more illegal **** coming north across the border from
the USA than going south from Canada.

I never said there wasn't. What I said was the border leaked from
your country to ours.



Pot going south from BC? You bet. But more guns, liquor, and hard
drugs coming north.. More illegal immigrants coming into Canada
through the USA than the other direction as well.

Why would anyone come through Canada to get to the states, when they
can get welfare and health care in Canada that puts the USA to
shame?????

And you can have 'em! g

--
Inside every older person is a younger person wondering WTF happened.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 13:27:25 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
Difference is that legalization will lower the price, thus making these outcomes less likely,
and less drastic.

Drug addiction has a direct effect on the brain an behaviour. Do you
actually believe that an initially lower cost will change that. All it
will do is to create more drug addicts and more problems for society.
And, you're fooling yourself if you think a lower cost will lessen
anything. Just like cigarettes, a black market will grow feed the
increased need for drugs.

Drug addiction destroys homes, lives and people.
No argument there at all.

So why on earth would you advocate free market drugs. Do you think for
even one minute that destroyed homes, lives and people won't have a
cost effect on the population?

Are you able to have a rational discussion without personally insulting those who disagree
with you?

Not when I see such absolutely ridiculous statements to the effect of
legalizing drugs.

Are you actually going to sit there and tell me that crystal meth
users are going to act rationally if crystal meth becomes legal.


Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition, does not and cannot work: in a free market, if there
is a demand for a product or service, someone will provide a supply. The ONLY way to
stop the drug problem is to address the demand side, by regarding it as a public health
problem instead of a criminal justice problem.

Maybe not, but legalizing drugs as a means to control it is absolutely
absurd. Find another method to control the drug market.

Again, I say that drug addiction has a direct effect on brains and
behaviour. The horrendous increase in drug addicts due to easy access
would only result in social catastrophe.

In article , Dave
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:54:27 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Mostly through Mohawk reserves.

There's native Americans down your way too. I guess our native
Canadians are all bands of criminals while your native Americans are
docile citizens.

Down my way?

You're north of Saskatoon?


As usual Balderstone, you're full of crap. Unverifiable crap.

This is entirely verifiable. Do a Google search on "Mohawk smuggling".

Which media reports do you trust? CBC? NY Times? Montreal Gazette?
National Post? Wikipedia? Ottawa Citizen?

They are all there in the Google results.

I ain't the one full of crap...

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

In article , Dave
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:35:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Here, the policies cover LEGAL activities (quoting
http://nfa.ca/nfa-insurance):

Do you want to know WHY that insurance is so cheap up here? It's
because there are so few gun owners and guns are significantly more
controlled than down in the US. That means the chance of something
happening on a gun range is much less.

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in the US,
insurance rates would be much higher.

Citation, please?

--
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside a dog, it's too dark to
read. - Groucho Marx

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in the US,
insurance rates would be much higher.

Citation, please?

Just an opinion. More people owning guns and fewer controls on those
guns means a higher percentage of gun incidents. That would be all it
would take for insurance premiums to be higher.

The gun owners in Canada are much more rigidly controlled than in the
US. I should know, I used to own a number of firearms including two
hand guns.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:58:45 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in the US,
insurance rates would be much higher.

Citation, please?

Just an opinion. More people owning guns and fewer controls on those
guns means a higher percentage of gun incidents. That would be all it
would take for insurance premiums to be higher.

There are actually fewer crimes because of guns, reducing insurance
claims.

The gun owners in Canada are much more rigidly controlled than in the
US. I should know, I used to own a number of firearms including two
hand guns.

So you're sheep. Nothing new.

wrote in
:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:58:45 -0500, Dave
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in
the US, insurance rates would be much higher.

Citation, please?

Just an opinion. More people owning guns and fewer controls
on those guns means a higher percentage of gun incidents.
That would be all it would take for insurance premiums to
be higher.


May want to look at this, and in CA of all places.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/507...nia-gun-sales-
increase.html

Larry

On 30 Dec 2012 17:23:11 GMT, Larry wrote:

wrote in
:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:58:45 -0500, Dave
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in
the US, insurance rates would be much higher.

Citation, please?

Just an opinion. More people owning guns and fewer controls
on those guns means a higher percentage of gun incidents.
That would be all it would take for insurance premiums to
be higher.


May want to look at this, and in CA of all places.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/507...nia-gun-sales-
increase.html

There are still a few sane people left in CA. Why they would stay is
a mystery.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:38 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Dave
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:54:27 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Mostly through Mohawk reserves.

There's native Americans down your way too. I guess our native
Canadians are all bands of criminals while your native Americans are
docile citizens.

Down my way?

You're north of Saskatoon?


As usual Balderstone, you're full of crap. Unverifiable crap.

This is entirely verifiable. Do a Google search on "Mohawk smuggling".

Which media reports do you trust? CBC? NY Times? Montreal Gazette?
National Post? Wikipedia? Ottawa Citizen?

They are all there in the Google results.

I ain't the one full of crap...
And all the Mohawks are Canadian, eh?? The "mohawk warriors"
involved in a lot of the "insurrections" up here are identified as
from the USA (New York) - and ORIGINALLY the mohawk were from what is
now New York State - they left as United Empire Loyalists - in large
part.

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:54:28 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:49:10 -0800, Mike M
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:59:35 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Business insurance has cost me between $750 and $1,200 per year for
half a million liability, and that's with zero claims against it. They
want to double it if I do roofing or framing. You have it lucky up
there in Canuckistan. Hell, our ins guys want almost $10 for a
zeroxed copy of our own policy.

I haven't worked since I got hurt in 2009, but I wish my insurance was
that cheap. I'm just one state north of you and I had 2 million with
another 1 million umbrella policy. I paid $24,000 per year in 2008
for business insurance. Now I did have 2 bucket trucks, a boom truck,
6 vans, a box truck, and a pickup. I also had 8-10 employees and was
doing commercial industrial electrical work but man that seems cheap
for your insurance cost. My contracts usually had 4-8 clauses just to
deal with insurance and indemnification.

Yeah, everything in your biz reeks of risk. I'm glad handymanning
doesn't carry that insurance price. But I'm required to have a
contractor's license and continuing education to do work here. That
and insurance/bonding bring me up to several grand every 2 years.

I'm still doing CE's to maintain my master electrician license just in
case I have to work, but in Wa. electrical contractors get a break as
we only have to carry a $6K bond. A lot of the cost is being in
commercial & industrial where everyone wants to be named as an
additional insured. Just a hint use caution if your ever working
around navigatble waters. This requires an entire other insurance
policy.

On the other hand the guy
who ran me down only had 100K in insurance which covered my first 5
days of hospital time. I guess what I paid was worth it as I was able
to collect on the underinsured motorist part of the policy.

Wouldn't you like to find him some night in a dark alley, perhaps with
a loose 440V line in your gloved hand? "Here, hold this."

Actually I saw the guy that hit me being held back. After the EMT's
gave me the good stuff I think he was in more pain then me. He was 84
and had lukemia and prostate canser. He died the next month. I was
lucky it happened on the job. All I can tell you is good insurance
will save your family a lot of trouble if you can do it. Sadly once
the lawyers are involved there is no conversation.

Mike M

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Dave
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:35:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Here, the policies cover LEGAL activities (quoting
http://nfa.ca/nfa-insurance):

Do you want to know WHY that insurance is so cheap up here? It's
because there are so few gun owners and guns are significantly more
controlled than down in the US. That means the chance of something
happening on a gun range is much less.

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in the US,
insurance rates would be much higher.

Citation, please?

He's a gun-grabbin' Anti, just blowin' "facts" out his arse. Move
along. Nothing to see here.

--
You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore
the consequences of ignoring reality.
--Ayn Rand

On 30 Dec 2012 17:23:11 GMT, Larry wrote:

wrote in
:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 10:58:45 -0500, Dave
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in
the US, insurance rates would be much higher.

Citation, please?

Just an opinion. More people owning guns and fewer controls
on those guns means a higher percentage of gun incidents.
That would be all it would take for insurance premiums to
be higher.

Dave, for once in your life, would you please check statistics on
that? I guarantee it would surprise you. Start by reading the
article below. It is direct proof of what I speak.


May want to look at this, and in CA of all places.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/12/27/507...nia-gun-sales-
increase.html

Good article. The caveats are full of ****, but the rest isn't.
The charts tell it all. Blue = criminals (assaults), Red = crazies
(suicides), and the teeny yellow bar is unintentional/accidents.
The good guys, gun owners, aren't even in the picture.

--
You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore
the consequences of ignoring reality.
--Ayn Rand

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:44:11 -0500, wrote:
There are actually fewer crimes because of guns, reducing insurance
claims.

Prove it.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:30:42 -0500, wrote:
There are still a few sane people left in CA. Why they would stay is
a mystery.

Well at least you're not here. That's one very excellent reason to
live up here.

On 12/30/2012 06:37 PM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 08:23:47 -0600, Dave Balderstone
wrote:

In article , Dave
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:35:10 -0600, Dave Balderstone
Here, the policies cover LEGAL activities (quoting
http://nfa.ca/nfa-insurance):

Do you want to know WHY that insurance is so cheap up here? It's
because there are so few gun owners and guns are significantly more
controlled than down in the US. That means the chance of something
happening on a gun range is much less.

If Canadian gun ownership was as prevalent as it was in the US,
insurance rates would be much higher.

Citation, please?

He's a gun-grabbin' Anti, just blowin' "facts" out his arse. Move
along. Nothing to see here.


Perhaps this will help when dealing with the GunBanners(tm):

http://www.americanthinker.com/video...XdPULDm0.email


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:37:50 -0800, Larry Jaques
He's a gun-grabbin' Anti

Actually, I'm not anti gun. To be more precise, I'm anti having it
really easy to get a gun. Big, big difference.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 19:18:14 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
Perhaps this will help when dealing with the GunBanners(tm):

Daneliuk, why are you here? You never contribute *anything* in the way
of woodworking information and you only become involved in topics
where you can inflame rhetoric.

For all the arguments I get into here, I do post the occasional
woodworking comment. You can't say even that much.

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 15:22:16 -0800, Mike M
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 18:54:28 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Sat, 29 Dec 2012 00:49:10 -0800, Mike M
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 15:59:35 -0800, Larry Jaques
wrote:

Business insurance has cost me between $750 and $1,200 per year for
half a million liability, and that's with zero claims against it. They
want to double it if I do roofing or framing. You have it lucky up
there in Canuckistan. Hell, our ins guys want almost $10 for a
zeroxed copy of our own policy.

I haven't worked since I got hurt in 2009, but I wish my insurance was
that cheap. I'm just one state north of you and I had 2 million with
another 1 million umbrella policy. I paid $24,000 per year in 2008
for business insurance. Now I did have 2 bucket trucks, a boom truck,
6 vans, a box truck, and a pickup. I also had 8-10 employees and was
doing commercial industrial electrical work but man that seems cheap
for your insurance cost. My contracts usually had 4-8 clauses just to
deal with insurance and indemnification.

Yeah, everything in your biz reeks of risk. I'm glad handymanning
doesn't carry that insurance price. But I'm required to have a
contractor's license and continuing education to do work here. That
and insurance/bonding bring me up to several grand every 2 years.

I'm still doing CE's to maintain my master electrician license just in
case I have to work, but in Wa. electrical contractors get a break as
we only have to carry a $6K bond. A lot of the cost is being in
commercial & industrial where everyone wants to be named as an
additional insured. Just a hint use caution if your ever working
around navigatble waters. This requires an entire other insurance
policy.

OK. I already learned that I couldn't clean up an overgrown yard on
the river without a grant from GOD himself. I pass on those requests
any more.

I got stuck for $1,000 for the $5k bond my first year. After that,
they said I could have it for "only $800." I looked around and the
next company said $180 total for a THREE YEAR CONTRACT. I've never
wanted to nuke a bonding company before, but that first one surely
needed it. And the worst part: I couldn't put up the money for the
bond myself. Some married contractor's ex-wife had her attorney steal
the money from his bond account and the guy was forced out of business
until he could come up with a bond. After that, the state said "bonds
only". I'd rather do superb work and warranty it with a satisfaction
guarantee.

I got a surprise the first time I wanted to advertise as a handyman.
The newspaper said "You have to give us your CCB license number before
you can advertise." I learned then that I needed to be licensed,
bonded, and insured before I could go inside someone's house and
squirt graphite on a hinge. Major surprise!
2 months and about $2,500 later, I was. Egad...


On the other hand the guy
who ran me down only had 100K in insurance which covered my first 5
days of hospital time. I guess what I paid was worth it as I was able
to collect on the underinsured motorist part of the policy.

Wouldn't you like to find him some night in a dark alley, perhaps with
a loose 440V line in your gloved hand? "Here, hold this."

Actually I saw the guy that hit me being held back. After the EMT's
gave me the good stuff I think he was in more pain then me. He was 84
and had lukemia and prostate canser. He died the next month. I was
lucky it happened on the job. All I can tell you is good insurance
will save your family a lot of trouble if you can do it. Sadly once
the lawyers are involved there is no conversation.

Ayup.


--
You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore
the consequences of ignoring reality.
--Ayn Rand

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:17:51 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 12:30:42 -0500, wrote:
There are still a few sane people left in CA. Why they would stay is
a mystery.

Well at least you're not here. That's one very excellent reason to
live up here.

You can have it. OTOH, you're the reason CA is CA. Stay there.
PLEASE!

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:16:20 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 11:44:11 -0500, wrote:
There are actually fewer crimes because of guns, reducing insurance
claims.

Prove it.

You're too much of a chicken**** to read it, but start with:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...ords=john+lott

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:20:24 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 16:37:50 -0800, Larry Jaques
He's a gun-grabbin' Anti

Actually, I'm not anti gun. To be more precise, I'm anti having it
really easy to get a gun. Big, big difference.

No, there really isn't. You lefties are all the same.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:35:06 -0500, wrote:
You're too much of a chicken**** to read it, but start with:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...ords=john+lott

Then, how do you explain this asshole?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-of-the-world/
http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control...al-comparison/

In EVERY link I found that listed gun murders by country, the USA had
at least twice the number of killings per 100,000 citizens compared
to Canada.

Sure, there's always going to be some sites with a personal agenda
that skew the stats, but all of them?

It's douche bags like you what are just too damned ignorant to see the
truth staring them in the face.

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 01:06:00 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 00:35:06 -0500, wrote:
You're too much of a chicken**** to read it, but start with:
http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less...ords=john+lott

Then, how do you explain this asshole?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...hip-world-list
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-of-the-world/
http://ivn.us/2012/07/25/gun-control...al-comparison/

In EVERY link I found that listed gun murders by country, the USA had
at least twice the number of killings per 100,000 citizens compared
to Canada.

Your logic, well, isn't. Does Canada have the gang-bangers of
Chicago?

Sure, there's always going to be some sites with a personal agenda
that skew the stats, but all of them?

I knew you wouldn't read it. You're a fraud.

It's douche bags like you what are just too damned ignorant to see the
truth staring them in the face.

You're projecting, again.