Prev: Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade?
Next: What am I looking at, moneywise, to get into photography?
From: Savageduck on 17 Sep 2009 19:27
On 2009-09-17 15:47:33 -0700, "D. Peter Maus"
> On 9/17/09 17:33 , SMS wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>> It's amazing how few people here break into houses, when they know
>>> that the occupants probably have a gun.
>> In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly all break-ins occur when the
>> occupants are not home. Guns are one of the items most likely to be
>> stolen in house break-ins.
>>> If I were a professional house breaker, I would go to some country
>>> where no one is allowed to own a gun. That's just good common sense.
>> A professional "house breaker" does not break into houses that are
>> occupied. They do break into houses where they think fence-able items
>> are available. An indication that the homeowner is a member of the NRA
>> would indicate the probability that handguns are stored in the house.
> > If you want to prevent break-ins, install security cameras, alarms, and
>> get a dog that barks a lot when strangers approach. You'll be much more
>> likely to prevent a break-in than you would by owning a gun.
> Um...when Morton Grove banned handguns, home invasions went up 128%.
Damn! It's a good thing I have this:
and as a retired peace officer, can liberally use it to do this;
and if that isn't enough I can always fall back on these;
.... this I just have for the pure joy of having a piece of history;
Who knows why the home invaders have stayed away?
From: mikey4 on 17 Sep 2009 19:28
"Twibil" <nowayjose6(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
On Sep 17, 4:04 am, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
> "Twibil" <nowayjo...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Sep 16, 7:26 pm, "mikey4" <lakediver(a)dd..net> wrote:
> >> > Never trust a man who gives online retorts with *no* substance.
> >> Well, you'd certainly be an expert on *that*, "mikey".
> > OOOOOOOO what a retort
> No, more of an alembic: distilled truth.
> LOL !!!! The only thing distilled here is what you are drinking.
I don't drink, and you missed (what a surprise!) the pun on "retort"
Free hint: when trying to insult someone on Usenet, it's a good idea
to try saying something that has at least a grain of truth in it.
Just grabbing a random insult and flinging it at the wall in hopes
that something will stick is pretty much useless because the insult
isn't likely to make any sense.
What ever you say
From: Walter Banks on 17 Sep 2009 19:30
Bill Graham wrote:
> How can any good come out of spending several
> trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary loss by
> spending more money, whether you are an individual or a country. We are on a
> big path to certain doom.
The basic economy needs the investment so it will produce money in the future.
Think about your stock investment. You give a company some money and they
use the money to do some manufacturing of a product that is sold and your
stock appreciates in value because they sold products for more than they cost
to make and you get to share in the profits. Think what would happen if you
invested your money. The last 6 months of Bush you would have been better
keeping all the money in a sock. The first 6 months of Obama you are about
30% better better off.
A country is similar. It invests in roads so I can eat California grapes and pay
the driver who pays the shipper who pays the farmer. Otherwise the grapes will
rot and the farmer will go broke and the bank will take away his house and
he will live in a tent in downtown SanFrancisco.
A country invests in basic education so they have people with basic skills to
be employed so they can feed their families.
A (some) countries invests in health care so workers will come to work
more often so local workers will be able to be more efficient that unskilled
martians living on a south seas island. Government run health care at its
worse is more efficient than all the insurance middle men. The US is the
last industrialized country to do the math.
From: Bill Graham on 17 Sep 2009 19:45
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at
>> the present and near future. How can any good come out of spending
>> several trillion dollars right now? You can't recover from a monetary
>> loss by spending more money, whether you are an individual or a country.
>> We are on a big path to certain doom.
> Spending that money will indeed devalue our currency and lead to
> inflation. Thanks to W, the U.S. standard of living will be lower for
> decades or even a century.
> However the alternative of letting the economy go from recession to
> depression would have been much worse. You have to learn to look at the
> big picture.
> There is a big difference between the reckless deficit spending of Reagan
> and W, and the current bailout of major financial institutions and
> manufacturers. The former was to enrich the wealthy at the expense of the
> lower and middle class. The latter is to prevent the whole world from
> going into a depression caused by the former. As distasteful as it may be
> to bail out GM, Chrysler, AIG, etc., the alternative would have been much
> It will take many decades to undo the problems wrought by supply-side
> economics, ignoring the threat of radical Islam, ignoring environmental
> degradation, and alienating most of the industrialized world in the
> process, but it isn't hopeless or certain doom.
This is ridiculous. It wasn't "supply side economics" that got the banks
lending money to people who didn't have any down payments and jobs to pay
for their homes. It was the erroneous belief that real estate prices would
rise forever, plus the lack of regulation that encouraged the banks to be so
stupid. Neither Regan nor Bush, (nor Clinton) had anything to do with this.
From: Bill Graham on 17 Sep 2009 19:52
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> It's amazing how few people here break into houses, when they know that
>> the occupants probably have a gun.
> In fact, the opposite is true. Nearly all break-ins occur when the
> occupants are not home. Guns are one of the items most likely to be stolen
> in house break-ins.
>> If I were a professional house breaker, I would go to some country where
>> no one is allowed to own a gun. That's just good common sense.
> A professional "house breaker" does not break into houses that are
> occupied. They do break into houses where they think fence-able items are
> available. An indication that the homeowner is a member of the NRA would
> indicate the probability that handguns are stored in the house.
> If you want to prevent break-ins, install security cameras, alarms, and
> get a dog that barks a lot when strangers approach. You'll be much more
> likely to prevent a break-in than you would by owning a gun.
I meant break ins when the occupants either are home, or the breaker doesn't
know whether or not the occupants are home.....Of course, people won't
normally break into houses when the occupants are known to be home.
Especially here in the US, where the occupants are known to have guns in the
house. When I leave the house, I leave lights on, and close my garage door,
so nobody knows I am gone. And when I am home sleeping in the middle of the
night, I have that gun under my mattress, baby.....