From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab2b555$0$1614$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> 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
> worse.
>
> 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

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab2b900$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> 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.....

From: Bill Graham on

"D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:h8uea5$q21$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
> 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%.
>
>
Just look at the crime rate in New York City, where handguns have been
illegal all of my life.

From: D. Peter Maus on
On 9/17/09 19:13 , Bill Graham wrote:
>
> "D. Peter Maus" <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:h8uea5$q21$1(a)news.eternal-september.org...
>> 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%.
>>
>>
> Just look at the crime rate in New York City, where handguns have been
> illegal all of my life.



Or DC.



From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-17 16:52:45 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:4ab2b900$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
>> 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.....

Under the mattress is not a safe place to keep any weapon, especially
groping for it under duress.
A bedside drawer is safer and more accessible.
BTW there is nothing that will clear your home of intruders quicker
than the sound of a 12 gauge pump action shotgun being racked. That is
by far the finest home defense weapon.

....and you will probably never even have to introduce yourself to your
uninvited guests.
--
Regards,

Savageduck