Driver to drive?

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 3:25:38 AM UTC+11, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 8:55:04 PM UTC-5, rober...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:41:06 PM UTC-6, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:

It bears repeating - anyone who is stockpiling weapons when their
neighbors aren't is planning an attack.

Of course wingnut gun-nuts can't be trusted. Duh!

I understand why you feel as you do, but I grew up in the South where many people have multiple guns. If you do not have some sort of adjustable choke, you need a gun for ducks. A different one for pheasants, and another for quail,doves and snipe. Add another gun for a deer rifle and maybe also a slug gun for places where rifles carry too far. You probably want a bigger calliper for Elk and Moose. And maybe a varmint rifle for varmints. And a .22 for target practise. And I have not even gotten into hand guns.

What we really ought to be doing is having car control. Cars kill a lot more people than guns.

That's just a stupid diversion from the issue. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Sure. In self-defense. That's the most fundamental right of all.
What's wrong with that? Do people not have a right to defend their
own lives?

The purpose of a gun is to kill. This can be legitimate when the gun is used for self-defense, but this isn't the only way that they are used, and in practice the most likely use of gun is for suicide, with murder in second place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

"There were 19,392 firearm-related suicides in the U.S. in 2010"

"According to the FBI, in 2014, there were 8,124 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 5,562 of those attributed to handguns."

These numbers may be comparable with the number of times a gun was brandished in self-defence, but since guns are hardly ever fired in self-defence, and US crime rates are no lower than those in other advanced industrial countries, while gun-related deaths are a lot higher, brandishing something less lethal might be good idea.

And in America, the Founders provided for the private right to firearms to
keep the nation safe, stable, and free. What's wrong with that?

It doesn't work? The 2nd amendment didn't prevent the US Civil War, and Tito's enthusiasm for armed militias - like Jefferson, he'd lead some - didn't stop former Yugoslavia from falling apart, and made the process a whole lot bloodier than it might have been.

The purpose of a car is for transportation.

The purpose of a firearm varies, from hunting to self-defense.

The "self-defense" purpose puts the gun owner at higher risk from suicide than they are from home invasion. Gun control is perfectly compatible with allowing individuals of good character who are at risk to keep a gun at home for self-defense. If you aren't at risk, you really shouldn't do it, and if you aren't of "good character" - no criminal convictions and no active mental disease, you really shouldn't have a gun which you might use for purposes other than rational and legitimate self-defense.

How many people use a car to intentionally kill? I'd say that's a very rare occurrence.

How many firearm owners use their firearms to murder? I'd say that's a
very rare occurrence.

About one twenty times less rare in the US - 3.5 gun murders per 100,000 people per year - than it is in Australia - 0.18 gun murder per 100,000 per year. Regular - non-gun - murders are in the same ball park in both countries.

> Virtually all killers get to their crime sites in cars. BAN CARS!

Cost-benefit analysis doesn't support that proposition. It wouldn't stop killers getting to their crime sites - public transport works fine - and it would inconvenience the much larger population of non-killers.

> > Why is it so damn hard to come to a rational consensus to prevent these mass shootings? What are other developed nations doing? Why is this so prevalent in the USA compared to similar countries? Sheesh it's not rocket science. Any idiot can tell you the solution to preventing mass shootings is to not add more guns to the matter.

Not a proposition that even James Arthur can argue with.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Mon, 19 Mar 2018 17:46:42 +0000, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 19/03/18 16:25, dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 8:55:04 PM UTC-5, rober...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:41:06 PM UTC-6, dca...@krl.org wrote:
On Friday, February 16, 2018 at 7:56:37 PM UTC-5, bitrex wrote:



It bears repeating - anyone who is stockpiling weapons when their
neighbors aren't is planning an attack.

Of course wingnut gun-nuts can't be trusted. Duh!

I understand why you feel as you do, but I grew up in the South where many people have multiple guns. If you do not have some sort of adjustable choke, you need a gun for ducks. A different one for pheasants, and another for quail,doves and snipe. Add another gun for a deer rifle and maybe also a slug gun for places where rifles carry too far. You probably want a bigger calliper for Elk and Moose. And maybe a varmint rifle for varmints. And a .22 for target practise. And I have not even gotten into hand guns.

What we really ought to be doing is having car control. Cars kill a lot more people than guns.

Dan

That's just a stupid diversion from the issue. The purpose of a gun is to kill.

Sure. In self-defense. That's the most fundamental right of all.
What's wrong with that? Do people not have a right to defend their
own lives?

Yes, they do have that right, amongst other rights, e.g. the
"*life*, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now, how was the bastard that killed innocent schoolkids acting
in self defence?

What does that have to do with someone else's right to self defense?

And in America, the Founders provided for the private right to firearms to
keep the nation safe, stable, and free. What's wrong with that?

In the extreme forms advocated by the gun fetishists, and taken
advantage by criminals and some mentally disturbed people,
it has failed. That's what is wrong.

Except, as James indicated before, this is exceedingly rare. Self
defense isn't.

 

[Brian Gregory]

On 30/01/2018 20:56, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:

I have a GB Instruments multimeter (GMT -19A).
I've had this meter for years and it's always worked fine.

It came with 2 fuses. One was installed in the fuse holder inside by the
batteries. The other is a spare fuse which was in a plastic clip on the
other side of the batteries, and meant to be a spare.

The fuses are 7/8 inch long and are supposed to be SFE 0.5 amp / 250V.
...

WTF does SFE mean??

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2018-03-19, krw@notreal.com <krw@notreal.com> wrote:

Now, how was the bastard that killed innocent schoolkids acting
in self defence?

What does that have to do with someone else's right to self defense?

Self defense is fine so long it does not pose a greater risk to
innocent parties.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

 

[mpm]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 2:31:14 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:

Self defense is fine so long it does not pose a greater risk to
innocent parties.

Darwin would disagree with you.

But seriously, stop to think about your statement from the viewpoint of the one under attack. Especially considering the likelihood that others out there do not share your viewpoint and would be very willing to risk YOUR life to save their own! Now what?

 

Just an aside here. I am not talking gun control with serfs. And a guy I met recently who is a good Man and conservative who refused to put his kid on ritalin and committed himself to spending the extra time to help the kid not taking the easy way out told m e a friend of his came up with a good one.. A younger guy wanted to engage his friend in a debate about guns and he said "I refuse to talk about gin control with someone who eats soap and doesn't know which bathroom to use". In my opinion people who want to disarm me or others are in the same category because they are just as stupid. There is no point in responding to the above, you will NEVER change my mind, period.

But about the conspiracy theories.

We have cooperation between big money entities that operates in their own best interest for their own financial gain and to attain more power for themselves at the expense of anyone else.

But it is not a conspiracy because they say it is not. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It is no theory.

And they won't be voted out, stern letters won't work. What does that leave ?

I know this appears to be pointed at you Sloman but it isn't, it was just convenient to hit the "Post" button here. To try to convince me of your slavish views would be like talking to a wall, even though I am not a wall.

 

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 10:08:51 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 2:31:14 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:

Self defense is fine so long it does not pose a greater risk to
innocent parties.

Darwin would disagree with you.

Human beings are great at cooperating to get the best result for the group.

Choosing to have a gun at home when it puts you at greater risk from suicide or murder by your nearest and dearest than you run from any of the threats you might use it to defend yourself against isn't a way of maximising your chances of contributing to gene pool.

Gun murder kills 3.5 per 100,000 per year in the US, and 0.18 per 100,000 per year in Australia. Non-gun murders are in the same ball-park in both countries (and in most other advanced industrial countries).

Gun control works a whole lot better than what you have in the US, and bleatign about your right o defend yourself merely emphasises that you can't think straight.

> But seriously, stop to think about your statement from the viewpoint of the one under attack. Especially considering the likelihood that others out there do not share your viewpoint and would be very willing to risk YOUR life to save their own! Now what?

Very few people are actually end up "under attack" in a situation where waving a gun would help, and any survival advantage is wiped out by the risk of committing suicide with the gun being waved.

95% of gun suicide attempts succeed and about 5% of all the other mechanisms.

It's stupid.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <0radnSinAYWBEi3HnZ2dnUU78YudnZ2d@giganews.com>, void-
invalid-dead-dontuse@gmail.com says...

On 30/01/2018 20:56, oldschool@tubes.com wrote:
I have a GB Instruments multimeter (GMT -19A).
I've had this meter for years and it's always worked fine.

It came with 2 fuses. One was installed in the fuse holder inside by the
batteries. The other is a spare fuse which was in a plastic clip on the
other side of the batteries, and meant to be a spare.

The fuses are 7/8 inch long and are supposed to be SFE 0.5 amp / 250V.
...

WTF does SFE mean??

Society of Fuse Engineers


North-American built automobiles up to 1981 had electrical systems
protected by cylindrical glass cartridge fuses rated 32 volts DC and
current ratings from 4 amperes to 30 amperes. These are known as "SFE"
fuses, as they were designed by the Society of Fuse Engineers to prevent
the insertion of a grossly inadequate or unsafe fuse into the vehicle's
fuse panel.[3][4] These SFE fuses all have a ?1/4 inch diameter, and the
length varies according to the rating of the fuse.

A 4 amp SFE 4 fuse is ?5/8 inch long (the same dimension as an AGA fuse
of any rating),
a 6 amp SFE 6 fuse is ?3/4 inch long,
a 7.5 amp SFE 7.5 fuse is ?7/8 inch long (same as an AGW fuse of any
rating),
a 9 amp SFE 9 fuse is ?7/8 inch long (same as an AGW fuse of any
rating),
a 14 amp SFE 14 fuse is 1?1/16 inch long,
a 20 amp SFE 20 fuse is 1?1/4 inch long (same as an AGC fuse of any
rating), and
a 30 amp SFE 30 fuse is 1?7/16 inches long.[3]

 

On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

Just an aside here. I am not talking gun control with serfs. And a guy I met recently who is a good Man and conservative who refused to put his kid on ritalin and committed himself to spending the extra time to help the kid not taking the easy way out told m e a friend of his came up with a good one. A younger guy wanted to engage his friend in a debate about guns and he said "I refuse to talk about gin control with someone who eats soap and doesn't know which bathroom to use". In my opinion people who want to disarm me or others are in the same category because they are just as stupid. There is no point in responding to the above, you will NEVER change my mind, period.

But about the conspiracy theories.

We have cooperation between big money entities that operates in their own best interest for their own financial gain and to attain more power for themselves at the expense of anyone else.

Why would you even discuss it with Slowman. He has no valid opinion
on the matter. Let him stew, alone, in Ausieland. Ignore the moron.

But it is not a conspiracy because they say it is not. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It is no theory.

And they won't be voted out, stern letters won't work. What does that leave ?

I know this appears to be pointed at you Sloman but it isn't, it was just convenient to hit the "Post" button here. To try to convince me of your slavish views would be like talking to a wall, even though I am not a wall.

 

On 20 Mar 2018 06:09:44 GMT, Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:

On 2018-03-19, krw@notreal.com <krw@notreal.com> wrote:

Now, how was the bastard that killed innocent schoolkids acting
in self defence?

What does that have to do with someone else's right to self defense?

Self defense is fine so long it does not pose a greater risk to
innocent parties.

OK. It doesn't. Next?

 

"Why would you even discuss it with Slowman. He has no valid opinion
on the matter. Let him stew, alone, in Ausieland. Ignore the moron."

It was alright for time but I grew bored with it.

 

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 12:21:05 AM UTC+11, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:
> Just an aside here. I am not talking gun control with serfs. And a guy I met recently who is a good Man and conservative who refused to put his kid on ritalin and committed himself to spending the extra time to help the kid not taking the easy way out told m e a friend of his came up with a good one. A younger guy wanted to engage his friend in a debate about guns and he said "I refuse to talk about gin control with someone who eats soap and doesn't know which bathroom to use". In my opinion people who want to disarm me or others are in the same category because they are just as stupid. There is no point in responding to the above, you will NEVER change my mind, period.

In other words, you haven't got a mind, but rather a set off pre-programmed directives,

But about the conspiracy theories.

We have cooperation between big money entities that operates in their own best interest for their own financial gain and to attain more power for themselves at the expense of anyone else.

But it is not a conspiracy because they say it is not. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

It is no theory.

And they won't be voted out, stern letters won't work. What does that leave ?

I know this appears to be pointed at you Sloman but it isn't, it was just convenient to hit the "Post" button here. To try to convince me of your slavish views would be like talking to a wall, even though I am not a wall.

Sadly, it's yours views that are those of the pre-programmed slave.

To go back to the subject line of this thread, one of the big money entities that regulates the US to own advantage is the gun-manufacturing industry, that just loves a population that owns, on average, one gun per head.

They spend real money on programming gullible twits like you to think that the money spent on a gun buys you "freedom" (from what?), political stability (how?) and "self-defense" when - statistically speaking - the biggest thing that it buys you is a 95% chance of success when you attempt suicide.

This doesn't happen often - 6.7 gun suicides per year per 100,000 people - but it's the most likely gun-related fatal event for a gun owner - almost twice a likely as using the gun to shoot somebody else - gun murder - at 3.5 per 100,000 per year.

NRA members seem to report brandishing a gun at somebody to intimidate them about twice as often as somebody gets shot with a gun, but the NRA does seem to encourage people to make this kind of report. Legitimate gun homicide - which is properly investigated and documented - seems to be vanishingly rare.

You are being stupid because you are have been persuaded to be stupid by somebody who makes money out of it. This isn't exactly slavery, but it isn't a dignified condition.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 3:09:57 AM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 06:20:59 -0700 (PDT), jurb6006@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

But about the conspiracy theories.

We have cooperation between big money entities that operates in their own best interest for their own financial gain and to attain more power for themselves at the expense of anyone else.

Why would you even discuss it with Sloman. He has no valid opinion
on the matter. Let him stew, alone, in Ausieland. Ignore the moron.

Krw regard his own opinion as the only possible valid opinion, and regards all other opinions as wrong and axiomatically moronic. That's not moronic - just insane.

One great advantage of living in Australia is that the gun murder rate here is 0.18 per 100,000 per while it's 3.5 per 100,000 per year in the US. It's probably a bit higher in krw's immediate vicinity, since he seems to own a few guns.

It wouldn't make much difference to me how I was murdered - if I were murdered - but the murder rate in Australia is 0.98 per 100,000 while it's 4.88 per 100,000 in the US, with most of the difference being the gun murders.

One can hypothesise that the rest of the difference is people killing a potentially gun-carrying opponent before they could draw their gun where in less gun-infested countries they might be content to disable them.

And the proposition that people live alone in Australia is statistically reasonable on the basis the average population density is 3 per km^2 where it's 33 per km^2 in the US and closer to 100 in Europe, but unrealistic in the face of the fact that Australia is one of the more urbanised countries, and that I live in Sydney in a heavily populated inner suburb.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[mpm]

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 8:51:27 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

Human beings are great at cooperating to get the best result for the group.

You honestly believe this statement?!!

My belly hurts now from laughing so hard!
Plus, I splurted coffee all over my keyboard.

While humans may be "great" at "cooperating" on some things, that's usually not the case when personal advantage is at stake.

 

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 10:34:57 PM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 8:51:27 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

Human beings are great at cooperating to get the best result for the group.

You honestly believe this statement?!!

My belly hurts now from laughing so hard!
Plus, I splurted coffee all over my keyboard.

While humans may be "great" at "cooperating" on some things, that's usually not the case when personal advantage is at stake.

Humans aren't as good as the social insects and naked mole rats, but they do pretty well. They will shaft other individuals for their own advantage, but shafting the group as a whole is extremely risky - that's the kind of behavior that gets you beaten up and expelled from the group.

Language is the mechanism that makes the group aware they they have been shafted, and coordinates the beating up and the ejection. The specific term for that kind of behavior is "treason" and it doesn't go down well.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 04:34:52 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com>
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 20, 2018 at 8:51:27 AM UTC-4, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

Human beings are great at cooperating to get the best result for the group.

You honestly believe this statement?!!

My belly hurts now from laughing so hard!
Plus, I splurted coffee all over my keyboard.

While humans may be "great" at "cooperating" on some things, that's usually not the case when personal advantage is at stake.

Humans are good at cooperating when the interests of the individual
align with the interests of the group. That's the entire motivation
behind the Constitution (and capitalism); how to get and keep them
aligned.

 

[mpm]

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:

Humans are good at cooperating when the interests of the individual
align with the interests of the group. That's the entire motivation
behind the Constitution (and capitalism); how to get and keep them
aligned.

That's an interesting perspective, considering slaves are human, but were considered property at the time the Constitution was drafted.

But I guess if you're a southern cotton farmer hell bent on getting the crop in, I'll concede the point.

On another note, I'm tempted to ask Sloman for some example of humans cooperating for the common good just so I can pole holes in it.

But then it hit me: I'm actually a bit envious of Sloman!!
He's so deluded he doesn't even know it. And if you think about it, that's damn near nirvana for clueless people.

I mean if we were all truly too stupid to know just how stupid we were, I'm guessing 95% of life's "problems" would cease to exist.

....As long as you're not a spitter. Nobody like a spitter.

 

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:53:01 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com>
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:

Humans are good at cooperating when the interests of the individual
align with the interests of the group. That's the entire motivation
behind the Constitution (and capitalism); how to get and keep them
aligned.

That's an interesting perspective, considering slaves are human, but were considered property at the time the Constitution was drafted.

There was a lot of discussion about that point. In the end the good,
but possible won over the ideal but unobtainable. It was expected
that slavery would self destruct in short time anyway.

>But I guess if you're a southern cotton farmer hell bent on getting the crop in, I'll concede the point.

Southern cotton farmers had a vote (veto), too.

On another note, I'm tempted to ask Sloman for some example of humans cooperating for the common good just so I can pole holes in it.

But then it hit me: I'm actually a bit envious of Sloman!!
He's so deluded he doesn't even know it. And if you think about it, that's damn near nirvana for clueless people.

Do you really believe Slowman is happy?

>I mean if we were all truly too stupid to know just how stupid we were, I'm guessing 95% of life's "problems" would cease to exist.

It's obviously not that simple. He sees bogeymen everywhere.

...As long as you're not a spitter. Nobody like a spitter.

 

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 12:14:11 PM UTC+11, k...@notreal.com wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2018 16:53:01 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard@aol.com
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:

Humans are good at cooperating when the interests of the individual
align with the interests of the group. That's the entire motivation
behind the Constitution (and capitalism); how to get and keep them
aligned.

That's an interesting perspective, considering slaves are human, but were considered property at the time the Constitution was drafted.

There was a lot of discussion about that point. In the end the good,
but possible won over the ideal but unobtainable. It was expected
that slavery would self destruct in short time anyway.

But I guess if you're a southern cotton farmer hell bent on getting the crop in, I'll concede the point.

Southern cotton farmers had a vote (veto), too.

On another note, I'm tempted to ask Sloman for some example of humans cooperating for the common good just so I can pole holes in it.

But then it hit me: I'm actually a bit envious of Sloman!!
He's so deluded he doesn't even know it. And if you think about it, that's damn near nirvana for clueless people.

Do you really believe Sloman is happy?

At least I can spell my name, as can mpm.

I mean if we were all truly too stupid to know just how stupid we were, I'm guessing 95% of life's "problems" would cease to exist.

It's obviously not that simple. He sees bogeymen everywhere.

Not that krw can name one.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Thursday, March 22, 2018 at 10:53:05 AM UTC+11, mpm wrote:

On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 2:22:12 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:

Humans are good at cooperating when the interests of the individual
align with the interests of the group. That's the entire motivation
behind the Constitution (and capitalism); how to get and keep them
aligned.

That's an interesting perspective, considering slaves are human, but were considered property at the time the Constitution was drafted.

But I guess if you're a southern cotton farmer hell bent on getting the crop in, I'll concede the point.

On another note, I'm tempted to ask Sloman for some example of humans cooperating for the common good just so I can pole holes in it.

Germany collects 45% of the national GDP in taxes - the US collects about 30% - and the German government spends big on getting the work force educated, so that more of them have some kind of tertiary education than in any other country.

This makes the German work force remarkably productive, which works for the common good of every German, so that Germany - with a population of 80 million exports - roughly as much as the US which has a population of 330 million. Poke a hole in that.

But then it hit me: I'm actually a bit envious of Sloman!!
He's so deluded he doesn't even know it.

Mpm does seem wedded to his own delusions, one of which seems to be that anybody who doesn't share his particular delusions is deluded. This is krw's specialty, but you don't have to share krw's particular delusions to be deluded in a similar way.

> And if you think about it, that's damn near nirvana for clueless people.

As krw keeps on reminding us.

> I mean if we were all truly too stupid to know just how stupid we were, I'm guessing 95% of life's "problems" would cease to exist.

As in John Larkin explaining that anthropogenic global warming doesn't really exist, so we don't have to anything to mitigate it.

> ...As long as you're not a spitter. Nobody like a spitter.

They like them a lot less where tuberculosis is endemic.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney