From: Savageduck on
On 2009-09-18 18:32:04 -0700, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> said:

> In rec.photo.digital J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote:
>> Chris Malcolm wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Or Tokyo, where people leave their suitases out on the street while
>>> they have a cup of tea inside the house waiting for a taxi, leave
>>> their bicycles in the street unlocked with shopping in the basket when
>>> they're shopping, and where ex-pat American women say how amazing it
>>> is to be able to walk the streets alone at night feeling quite safe.
>>>
>>> There's more to the problem than guns -- the elephant in the room
>>> nobody wants to talk about is why are US cities such savage places?
>
>> Imagine there being an office with a sign on the door that says "Mafia
>> Headquarters", a Mafia-published newsletter reporting accurately their
>> activities, and community services openly provided by the Mafia, Mafiosi
>> running around in a corporate uniform, with any criminal not authorized by
>> the Mafia likely to have a very short life.
>
>> Well it's like that in Japan. Google "Yakuza". Nobody would accuse them of
>> being "nice guys" but they have rules, and anyone wanting to be a live
>> criminal in Japan follows them.
>
> So the reason the streets of Tokyo are as safe as a remote English
> country village are not because the Japanese population is so well
> behaved, but because the Japanese criminals are so well behaved :-)

Yes, they will bow before they disembowel you.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4ab2f53a$0$1676$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> Just look at the crime rate in New York City, where handguns have been
>> illegal all of my life.
>
> Exactly!
>
> "http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/04/25/2009-04-25_city_crime_still_falling.html"
>
> Steve

"Robberies were also down from 4,837 last year at this time to 4,131 this
year, and grand larcenies dropped from 10,030 to 8,854. "

You call that good? In Dallas, these people would have been all blown away
last year, so this year the numbers would be close to nothing....:^)


From: Bill Graham on

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl(a)gol.com> wrote in message
news:maKdndWqQesOZy_XnZ2dnVY3goqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
>> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>> Just look at the crime rate in New York City, where handguns have been
>>> illegal all of my life.
>>
>> Exactly!
>>
>> "http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2009/04/25/2009-04-25_city_crime_still_falling.html"
>
> More inconvenient facts. We really have to stop this. Poor Bill is going
> to have a heart attack from all that cognitive dissonance and find out how
> poor his overpriced insurance really is.
>
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
>
>
As I quoted above, (from his article):

"Robberies were also down from 4,837 last year at this time to 4,131 this
year, and grand larcenies dropped from 10,030 to 8,854."

Things may be getting better there, (probably due to a cleaner police
department) but they are still pretty bad. But my belief in a citizen's
right to carry a gun to protect himself really has nothing to do with crime
statistics. One of the main purposes of the constitution is to protect the
minority from the tyranny of the majority, and the second amendment is just
another good example of that.

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8uvvd$d18$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>
>> We have been over this ground too many times already. Let's just look at
>> the present and near future.
>
> Well you might need to look at what Obama was handed by GWB before you try
> to blame him for where we are.
>
>> How can any good come out of spending several trillion dollars right now?
>
> Have you looked around the world? We are NOT the only Gov pumping money
> into their economy trying to avoid a Depression. Which we have done BTW.
> Have you bothered to look at your retirement fund in the last six months?
>
>
>> You can't recover from a monetary loss by spending more money, whether
>> you are an individual or a country.
>
> Actually if we had continued to follow GWB example of doing absolutely
> nothing, we WOULD be in a depression right now.
>
> Stephanie

You might be right about that, but we will never know.....Only a small
percentage of the money allocated by congress for bail-outs has been spent
to date. If they don't blow it all, but are prudent about using it, then I
will really start to agree with your position.....

From: Bill Graham on

<stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h8v09v$dg7$1(a)news.albasani.net...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>> "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.
>
>
> But massive deficit spending did affect all of this. You can't spend
> BILLIONS on a war and at the same time LOWER taxes. You blame the dem for
> "Tax and spend" but ignore the effects of "Tax rebate but spend a lot
> more". That is EXACTLY what Regan AND both Bush's did.
>
> And where exactly do you think we borrowed this money to go to war while
> lowering taxes came from?
>
> Stephanie

I agree that borrowing money is bad, and will produce a depressed economy in
the long run. but it doesn't matter what you use the money for....War, or
other stupid stuff. You still have to pay interest on the loans, and so your
future tax dollars are eaten up with your interest payments. But don't blame
the Republicans for spending all the money.....The Democrats have been just
as good at it during my lifetime.....Can you read Nancy Pelosi's mind?....I
think more than sugar plums are dancing in her wee little head about
now...... And she thinks I am her Santa Claus.....