|
Throw his ass in jail!!!
|
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:27:43 -0500, Jim wrote: wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old? Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown in jail if the child is killed in an accident? Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too. In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference? We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a kid is killed. I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all receptacles are child proof (shuttered). What a load of BS. You're qualifying as a gun-nut real fast. You and the others talking about rocks, knives and cars are just full of ****. Probably just don't like jps. Got nothing to do "moral equivalency." Got nothing to do with rocks, cars, knives or electricity. They ain't designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill. And for daddy, it worked as designed on his 3 year-old. There was no ****ing "accident." The gun worked perfectly and did its job. Daddy did no different than if he ushered a lion or grizzly bear into his 3 year-old's bedroom and shut the door. I don't care one way or another about guns. Outlaw them or make everybody carry. Probably won't make difference. But it really takes a gun nut to defend this prick daddy. I don't say throw him in jail, because he killed his own blood. If it was neighbors kid he should get 20 years in the clink. But he should never be allowed to possess a firearm again. You're either for "personal responsibility" or you ain't. Jim - Lame arguments are still better than name-calling I say. I already agreed with JPS in my first response. Throw him in jail. What do you want from me? You still can't ignore the fact that one for one, cars kill more people than guns. We have a lot more guns than cars and the death toll is about 20% higher with cars. in spite of the fact that cars are about the most highly regulated things in the country. We license the cars, we license the users, we regulate the manufacturers, we recall defective cars, improve the safety of the roads and we patrol the roads with hundreds of thousands of cops 24/7. If you take out suicide and criminal on criminal murders guns are not even in the running. Swimming pools kill a lot more kids under 5 than guns. What is your solution? Sounds like your solution is to stop regulating cars. Cars kill more people because more people in the US use cars per day/per week/per year than people use guns. Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when considering gun deaths? |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
|
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:33:56 -0400, wrote: It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because it might hurt someone where do you stop. WTF? that's WHY we ban stuff....speeding...drunk driving...mixing chemicals in your basement... did you think about that before you wrote it? Yes I did and the question still stands Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? There are at least a dozen other things around the house you can mix with bleach and create massive amounts of chlorine gas. "This bleach is not getting the soap scum out of the shower, maybe a little ammonia will help" and the paramedics find the body. They are on the news this week saying they should not be able to sell cough medicine because a couple kids drank a quart of it and died. Where do you stop? So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides? |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
"Secular Humorist" wrote in message ... On 9/18/10 8:54 PM, wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. You obviously haven't seen that show on Versus..."Swordslashing that Deer to an Easy, Sportsmanlike Death" It takes a brave man to hunt defenseless animals... :) Yeah, I knew a guy who hunted deer with a bow/arrow... a whole different sport from guys driving around in ATVs. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 15:16:55 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: You still can't ignore the fact that one for one, cars kill more people than guns. We have a lot more guns than cars and the death toll is about 20% higher with cars. in spite of the fact that cars are about the most highly regulated things in the country. We license the cars, we license the users, we regulate the manufacturers, we recall defective cars, improve the safety of the roads and we patrol the roads with hundreds of thousands of cops 24/7. If you take out suicide and criminal on criminal murders guns are not even in the running. Swimming pools kill a lot more kids under 5 than guns. What is your solution? Sounds like your solution is to stop regulating cars. Cars kill more people because more people in the US use cars per day/per week/per year than people use guns. No but where is the outrage when someone runs over a kid with a car? They certainly are not looking for jail time if the driver is not a 3 time loser drunk. Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances, obviously. Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when considering gun deaths? Because criminals do not care about gun laws. It has exactly zero effect on how they do business. If you banned guns, it would only give them another lucrative business to get into. Name one thing that has ever been banned and became unavailable. Actually it does. Mostly, unfortunately after the fact of the crime, but that's better than nothing. The point is to reduce the number of guns available... to secure them better as well. It's not a matter of being unavailable. It's a matter of no longer being used or minimally being used. Few things are absolute, except maybe vodka. :) |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:06:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old? Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown in jail if the child is killed in an accident? Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too. In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference? We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a kid is killed. I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all receptacles are child proof (shuttered). So, to hell with child safety? That's what you're arguing for... let's go back to the robber barrons... http://tinyurl.com/2f57cwl We already have a buttload of swimming pool rules but drowning it is still the biggest cause of death for toddlers. (mostly because people disconnect the pool alarm and leave the door open) Again, should we throw grandma in jail for it? The question is where do you stop? Should we require a fence on your boat dock and all the way down the canal? How about a fence around every lake and pond? (BTW that has been suggested here after a kid drown in a lake) Should we require stoves have locks on them so kids can't turn them on and burn themselves? (a couple thousand a year) How about child safety locks on lamp holders so kids can't unscrew the bulb and stick their finger in the hole (again there have been NEC proposals to ban edison lamp sockets as the incandescent bulbs are phased out). Nope... http://www.statisticstop10.com/Cause..._Toddlers.html Feel free to cite ridiculous examples. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
jps wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2010 21:47:18 -0400, wrote: jps wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 22:39:38 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 15:41:01 -0700, wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 18:31:43 -0400, wrote: On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 16:09:17 -0400, Secular Humorist wrote: A three year old is killed while playing with one of daddy's loaded guns and you call it an accident? It was negligence at the very least. The father should be brought up on criminal charges. I don't disagree as I said in my last note but being devil's advocate, would you feel the same way if the kid found the car keys and drove the car out in front of a school bus full of handicapped kids, driven by a pregnant woman? The even bigger question is how does the three year old tell the difference between your example bus and a bus filled with normal kids being driven by a barren woman? Given the choice, what which bus would the three year old hit? OK I just threw in the school bus, the handicapped kids and the pregnant woman to push as many buttons as possible but back to the point Would you throw a parent in jail if their kid found the car keys, got in the car and killed themselves someone else? It is a similar weapon, potentially deadly for whoever it hits. There is only one kind of dead. My point is: That this trouble with guns is so out of control that our best answer to negligence in gun safety has us prosecuting parents of dead kids? WTF is wrong with this picture? The cat is out of the bag and now we're coming up with idiotic answers because lawmakers are too scared of the gun lobby, it's money and political clout. Darwinism. You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old? No, Dawinism. Big difference. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 21:03:29 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 16:25:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 14:33:56 -0400, wrote: It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because it might hurt someone where do you stop. WTF? that's WHY we ban stuff....speeding...drunk driving...mixing chemicals in your basement... did you think about that before you wrote it? Yes I did and the question still stands Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? all of these things have a use, especially cars. the deaths from these other things...bleach, etc...are not frequent and are due to misuse. guns, OTOH, can, and have been banned in many countries with no ill effects at all. given the costs, there's no use for them |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
|
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:19:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Yes I did and the question still stands Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? There are at least a dozen other things around the house you can mix with bleach and create massive amounts of chlorine gas. "This bleach is not getting the soap scum out of the shower, maybe a little ammonia will help" and the paramedics find the body. They are on the news this week saying they should not be able to sell cough medicine because a couple kids drank a quart of it and died. Where do you stop? So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides? We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most dangerous animal in the 3d world. Come on. http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/ |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets. The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers. Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer. On in single acts, and they weren't the typical kind of mass killing we're discussing. Columbine for example. That's more typical isn't it. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:26:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when considering gun deaths? Because criminals do not care about gun laws. It has exactly zero effect on how they do business. If you banned guns, it would only give them another lucrative business to get into. Name one thing that has ever been banned and became unavailable. Actually it does. Mostly, unfortunately after the fact of the crime, but that's better than nothing. The point is to reduce the number of guns available... to secure them better as well. It's not a matter of being unavailable. It's a matter of no longer being used or minimally being used. Few things are absolute, except maybe vodka. :) You mean like "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"? Look at the UK crime statistics since they have totally outlawed guns. They are doing worse. On the other hand the states that started allowing concealed carry are doing better than before. Statistical anomaly? Perhaps,... but the whole Brady campaign is based on statistical anomalies. ?? This doesn't look worse to me... http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:27:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:06:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:11 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... You're going to use darwin to explain the death of a 3 year old? Should the parents of a 3 year old who is not in a car seat be thrown in jail if the child is killed in an accident? Again, just like the gun, they would charge the parent in Florida for a child not in a car seat. I suppose that is OK too. In the infamous "moral equivalency" business, what is the difference? We have decided there are no accidents, only criminal offenses, if a kid is killed. I suppose you know, the National Electrical Code now requires all receptacles are child proof (shuttered). So, to hell with child safety? That's what you're arguing for... let's go back to the robber barrons... http://tinyurl.com/2f57cwl We already have a buttload of swimming pool rules but drowning it is still the biggest cause of death for toddlers. (mostly because people disconnect the pool alarm and leave the door open) Again, should we throw grandma in jail for it? The question is where do you stop? Should we require a fence on your boat dock and all the way down the canal? How about a fence around every lake and pond? (BTW that has been suggested here after a kid drown in a lake) Should we require stoves have locks on them so kids can't turn them on and burn themselves? (a couple thousand a year) How about child safety locks on lamp holders so kids can't unscrew the bulb and stick their finger in the hole (again there have been NEC proposals to ban edison lamp sockets as the incandescent bulbs are phased out). Nope... http://www.statisticstop10.com/Cause..._Toddlers.html Feel free to cite ridiculous examples. * MV Traffic 533 10.97% * Drowning 454 9.35% Oh I am sorry I left out cars .... but wait, no I didn't. That was the first thing I was talking about OK drowning is second ... but #1 in the home. Notice gunshot is not even on the list. Yeah, for toddlers. So what. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
"bpuharic" wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:43:15 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:26:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote: I could make the same argument for all but commercial boats and at least half of the cars people own. Some real oil company haters would say most cars people own. UK eliminated the few guns they let people have and their murder rate went up. yeah. from 100 killed/year to 105. big deal. we have 11,000 killed each year by gunfire. but, many of them are black. and, given your view of obama, we know what your view of blacks is By the same token, given your view of GWB we know what you view of whites is. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
On Sep 19, 1:38*am, wrote:
On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:12:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides? We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most dangerous animal in the 3d world. Come on.http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/ DDT was not really dangerous to people. That was it's selling point. The reason it was banned was the effect on birds. (Read Rachel Carson's book) Like a lot of things the knee jerk was out of proportion to the problem. Because we thought DDT was safe we were pumping tons of it into the environment without any thoughts about the effect and any control on it's use. There are lots of people who think that if we would use it with the same controls we use with other poisons these days it would be safer than what we use. Your link to dioixin is a good example. Some say there are no safe insecticides. After all it is poison. If you are talking about some third world countries we are talking about millions of people dying from diseases spread by insects that could be controlled more safely with DDT in very small doses. This is not me talking, it is respected world health authorities. Howabout Chloradane (sp?). That stuff really doesn't hurt the environment, it was basically banned because workers were using it wrong and killing themselves in the fields. They would spray and rub the trees and next thing you know, they find them dead in the field. At least that is what I was told by a bug guy. I had a gallon of it years ago, it was incredible. A quater cup or so in a gallon of water and it even took out ground bees, all of em, dead or gone... |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
|
Throw his ass in jail!!!
On 9/19/10 9:18 AM, BAR wrote:
In , says... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. I've seen military swords used to cut wedding and birthday cakes. What a thrill that must have been...Did they later blow up the punch bowl with a grenade? |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message
... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. Seems like you are beginning to catch on to her MO. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message
... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 20:57:08 -0400, Secular Humorist wrote: On 9/18/10 8:54 PM, wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. You obviously haven't seen that show on Versus..."Swordslashing that Deer to an Easy, Sportsmanlike Death" It takes a brave man to hunt defenseless animals... :) ... and those defenseless fish. For the last 40 years my hunting has been against the wily skeet Krause is a recently reformed fish torturer and killer. The new kinder and gentler Krause hunts only tree stumps and paper targets. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message
... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets. The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers. Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer. I wonder. Why does DelaPlume keep that shotgun. We know she isn't a hunter. Must be that she's planning a mass murder. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message
... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:19:23 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Yes I did and the question still stands Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? There are at least a dozen other things around the house you can mix with bleach and create massive amounts of chlorine gas. "This bleach is not getting the soap scum out of the shower, maybe a little ammonia will help" and the paramedics find the body. They are on the news this week saying they should not be able to sell cough medicine because a couple kids drank a quart of it and died. Where do you stop? So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides? We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most dangerous animal in the 3d world. And banning DDT caused the massive hotel bedbug infestation of hotel rooms, probably airplanes too. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message
... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:26:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote: It is called freedom. Once we decide it is OK to ban something because it might hurt someone where do you stop. WTF? that's WHY we ban stuff....speeding...drunk driving...mixing chemicals in your basement... did you think about that before you wrote it? Yes I did and the question still stands Lots of people get killed in cars and are not speeding or drunk. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Everyone mixes chemicals and I bet you have lethal ones under your kitchen sink. Should we ban bleach? all of these things have a use, especially cars. the deaths from these other things...bleach, etc...are not frequent and are due to misuse. guns, OTOH, can, and have been banned in many countries with no ill effects at all. given the costs, there's no use for them I could make the same argument for all but commercial boats and at least half of the cars people own. Some real oil company haters would say most cars people own. UK eliminated the few guns they let people have and their murder rate went up. If Bupie had invested in guns instead of letting "Wall Street" run his portfolio, he might be ahead of the game now. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
In article ,
says... On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 04:35:40 -0700 (PDT), "JustWaitAFrekinMinute!" wrote: On Sep 19, 1:38*am, wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:12:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides? We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most dangerous animal in the 3d world. Come on.http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/ DDT was not really dangerous to people. That was it's selling point. The reason it was banned was the effect on birds. (Read Rachel Carson's book) Like a lot of things the knee jerk was out of proportion to the problem. Because we thought DDT was safe we were pumping tons of it into the environment without any thoughts about the effect and any control on it's use. There are lots of people who think that if we would use it with the same controls we use with other poisons these days it would be safer than what we use. Your link to dioixin is a good example. Some say there are no safe insecticides. After all it is poison. If you are talking about some third world countries we are talking about millions of people dying from diseases spread by insects that could be controlled more safely with DDT in very small doses. This is not me talking, it is respected world health authorities. Howabout Chloradane (sp?). That stuff really doesn't hurt the environment, it was basically banned because workers were using it wrong and killing themselves in the fields. They would spray and rub the trees and next thing you know, they find them dead in the field. At least that is what I was told by a bug guy. I had a gallon of it years ago, it was incredible. A quater cup or so in a gallon of water and it even took out ground bees, all of em, dead or gone... The thing they didn't like about Chloradane was it was not biodegradable. It lasts for decades. If people are just spraying it willy nilly into the environment that is a bad thing. It gets into the ground water and contaminates rivers. If it is properly used in a place where it is sequestered like under a poured concrete slab (termites) it is of no particular danger. I still have about a half gallon and that is a lifetime supply. I did shoot some under the slab on my addition. The right mix would have been more like a couple tablespoons in a gallon of water but read the label. It came in several concentrations but that was overkill for bees. Quite honestly I don't remember the mixture on the bottle but now that you mention it, the tablespoons seems more likely... Either way, I didn't ever find a need to use it "heavy".. The stuff worked well. I used the last of it when we moved to the old haunt down on the shoreline... -- OH, I could do the 105 footer, but I would hate to waste the last few seconds of my life with my eyes closed, screaming like a little girl...;) |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
|
Throw his ass in jail!!!
On 9/19/10 11:43 AM, I am Tosk wrote:
Quite honestly I don't remember the mixture on the bottle but now that you mention it, the tablespoons seems more likely... Either way, I didn't ever find a need to use it "heavy".. The stuff worked well. I used the last of it when we moved to the old haunt down on the shoreline... Two tablespoons in your beer should have done it. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
"Secular Humorist" wrote in message ... On 9/19/10 11:43 AM, I am Tosk wrote: Quite honestly I don't remember the mixture on the bottle but now that you mention it, the tablespoons seems more likely... Either way, I didn't ever find a need to use it "heavy".. The stuff worked well. I used the last of it when we moved to the old haunt down on the shoreline... Two tablespoons in your beer should have done it. ~~ Snerk ~~ |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
"Secular Humorist" wrote in message ... On 9/19/10 11:36 AM, wrote: I still have about a half gallon and that is a lifetime supply. I did shoot some under the slab on my addition. The right mix would have been more like a couple tablespoons in a gallon of water but read the label. It came in several concentrations but that was overkill for bees. We don't use any pesticides, and certainly don't want anything around that would kill bees. The bees are having a tough enough time. We do put up traps for the damned Japanese beetles, though...and they only attract the beetles. I was going to say that. I've seen reports where farmers are concerned about a decline in the bee population since they are very important for pollination in agricultural circles. Now we have whackos like The Freak spraying around dangerous compounds wiping them out. Wonder if the federal Agriculture people would be interested? |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
On 9/19/10 1:00 PM, YukonBound wrote:
"Secular Humorist" wrote in message ... On 9/19/10 11:36 AM, wrote: I still have about a half gallon and that is a lifetime supply. I did shoot some under the slab on my addition. The right mix would have been more like a couple tablespoons in a gallon of water but read the label. It came in several concentrations but that was overkill for bees. We don't use any pesticides, and certainly don't want anything around that would kill bees. The bees are having a tough enough time. We do put up traps for the damned Japanese beetles, though...and they only attract the beetles. I was going to say that. I've seen reports where farmers are concerned about a decline in the bee population since they are very important for pollination in agricultural circles. Now we have whackos like The Freak spraying around dangerous compounds wiping them out. Wonder if the federal Agriculture people would be interested? I doubt if littleman freak or many of the other righties here give a tinker's dam about the environment. He probably changes his car's oil and then pours the used up oil in his backyard or on his gravel driveway. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:12:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: So, you don't think we should ban some really nasty pesticides? We have. The unintended consequence is the mosquito became the most dangerous animal in the 3d world. Come on. http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/ DDT was not really dangerous to people. That was it's selling point. The reason it was banned was the effect on birds. (Read Rachel Carson's book) Like a lot of things the knee jerk was out of proportion to the problem. Because we thought DDT was safe we were pumping tons of it into the environment without any thoughts about the effect and any control on it's use. There are lots of people who think that if we would use it with the same controls we use with other poisons these days it would be safer than what we use. Your link to dioixin is a good example. Some say there are no safe insecticides. After all it is poison. If you are talking about some third world countries we are talking about millions of people dying from diseases spread by insects that could be controlled more safely with DDT in very small doses. This is not me talking, it is respected world health authorities. You're wrong about DDT. Read up: http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise...t/effects.html It was good at killing insects too... actually, most insects. Last I checked, they're pretty essential to the environment, and wiping out good ones isn't such a great idea. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:03:52 -0400, Secular Humorist wrote: On 9/19/10 11:36 AM, wrote: I still have about a half gallon and that is a lifetime supply. I did shoot some under the slab on my addition. The right mix would have been more like a couple tablespoons in a gallon of water but read the label. It came in several concentrations but that was overkill for bees. We don't use any pesticides, and certainly don't want anything around that would kill bees. The bees are having a tough enough time. We do put up traps for the damned Japanese beetles, though...and they only attract the beetles. I humored him about "ground bees". They were probably hornets. (yellow jackets). They are still beneficial on some way but they are not the endangered honey bees we are in trouble over. I am pretty much a live and let live guy but if there was a nest of yellow jackets in my yard that were a danger to my grandkids, they would have to go. You don't need poison to do this. You should clean out your yard of food they like to eat and use traps to catch the queen. You can even use boric acid. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:14:41 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets. The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers. Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer. On in single acts, and they weren't the typical kind of mass killing we're discussing. Columbine for example. That's more typical isn't it. More people were killed in Oklahoma city than all the school and work place mass killings combined. That sounds doubtful. 168 people were killed there. Maybe not that many from school/work/etc. in that year... Citation? |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:20:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. Not for mass killing. That's the point of restricting guns or bullets. The biggest mass murder in our history was executed with box openers. Prior to that it was a truckload of fertilizer. I wonder. Why does DelaPlume keep that shotgun. We know she isn't a hunter. Must be that she's planning a mass murder. Sounds like you're a mass murderer of your own brain cells. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
"Harry ?" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 13:07:39 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Knives are designed to kill. Swords are designed to kill. Arrows are designed to kill. It is not the object it is the intent of the user of the object. The object just makes it easier and faster for the user to implement his intent. No they aren't. They're designed to cut. Some swords are ceremonial. Arrows? Like this: --- Seems harmless enough. There are ceremonial guns too, what's your point? A sword is just a weapon for killing people, good for nothing else. You can't even say people hunt with swords. Seems like you are beginning to catch on to her MO. Seems like you've just about reached the apex of your brilliant observations. You should probably stop digging now. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
wrote in message ... On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:15:52 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 18:26:06 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Why would you take criminal murder of guns off the table when considering gun deaths? Because criminals do not care about gun laws. It has exactly zero effect on how they do business. If you banned guns, it would only give them another lucrative business to get into. Name one thing that has ever been banned and became unavailable. Actually it does. Mostly, unfortunately after the fact of the crime, but that's better than nothing. The point is to reduce the number of guns available... to secure them better as well. It's not a matter of being unavailable. It's a matter of no longer being used or minimally being used. Few things are absolute, except maybe vodka. :) You mean like "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns"? Look at the UK crime statistics since they have totally outlawed guns. They are doing worse. On the other hand the states that started allowing concealed carry are doing better than before. Statistical anomaly? Perhaps,... but the whole Brady campaign is based on statistical anomalies. ?? This doesn't look worse to me... http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm You can play all sorts of games with statistics. Take suicide. Japan is virtually gun free but they have a lot bigger suicide rate per 100,000 than us. Where there is a will there is a way. We kill more people with knives than UK murders, all causes. I haven't done it lately but when I was crunching numbers for a living I loaded raw data into a database and sliced it up different ways. All that proves is you can make interesting talking points out of anything and be 100% accurate with the numbers. NRA and Brady both do that. When you get down to what I really believe, I am probably more in favor of reasonable regulation than most here but I think the idea of bans and unreasonable regulation is just short sighted and dumb. Just look at the effect of the assault weapons ban. Before people really started making an issue of these things, they were a niche market, involving a very few gun nuts buying very expensive guns, mostly living in the deserts of the southwest who had safe places to shoot them. Criminals still had their saturday night specials and were happy with them. Then suddenly the only thing we heard on TV was the peril of assault weapons and people who had never heard of them needed one. To make matters worse there was a threat to ban them and China sold us 2 million cheap knockoffs in less than 2 years (pre ban and post ban models). A real collector would not touch this chink junk on a bet. I blame Clinton for that because he could have stopped these imports with an executive order but he did not want to upset his new chinese friends. After that the people who thought these were such a great investment ended up holding the bag because the bottom fell out of the market. That $500-600 thumb hole AK clone was suddenly only worth $250 and they started getting dumped into the cash and carry market. The ban didn't actually ban anything, reduced the price of the guns and put 2 million on the street. If you're in favor of reasonable gun regulations, then you're way, way out on the fringes of right-wing political thought and policy. Reducing the number of guns is one way to try and fix the ever growing gun problem we have in this country. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 06:21:42 -0400, "Aggravated"
wrote: "bpuharic" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 23:43:15 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 18 Sep 2010 22:26:01 -0400, bpuharic wrote: I could make the same argument for all but commercial boats and at least half of the cars people own. Some real oil company haters would say most cars people own. UK eliminated the few guns they let people have and their murder rate went up. yeah. from 100 killed/year to 105. big deal. we have 11,000 killed each year by gunfire. but, many of them are black. and, given your view of obama, we know what your view of blacks is By the same token, given your view of GWB we know what you view of whites is. i'm white. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 11:38:50 -0400, "Harry ?"
wrote: If Bupie had invested in guns instead of letting "Wall Street" run his portfolio, he might be ahead of the game now. yeah. i always forget the redneck factor in america. |
Throw his ass in jail!!!
In article ,
says... On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 12:03:52 -0400, Secular Humorist wrote: On 9/19/10 11:36 AM, wrote: I still have about a half gallon and that is a lifetime supply. I did shoot some under the slab on my addition. The right mix would have been more like a couple tablespoons in a gallon of water but read the label. It came in several concentrations but that was overkill for bees. We don't use any pesticides, and certainly don't want anything around that would kill bees. The bees are having a tough enough time. We do put up traps for the damned Japanese beetles, though...and they only attract the beetles. I humored him about "ground bees". They were probably hornets. (yellow jackets). They are still beneficial on some way but they are not the endangered honey bees we are in trouble over. I am pretty much a live and let live guy but if there was a nest of yellow jackets in my yard that were a danger to my grandkids, they would have to go. Exactly... They had attacked me and my dog so I wiped them out, no remorse. -- OH, I could do the 105 footer, but I would hate to waste the last few seconds of my life with my eyes closed, screaming like a little girl...;) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com