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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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...