On 3/25/2018 12:34 PM, wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 10:49:33 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 08:12:20 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:46:26 -0500, "cshenk" >
>>> wrote: >>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:03:56 -0400, Ed Pawlowski >
>>>>> wrote: >>
>>>>>>>> On 3/24/2018 7:03 AM, wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 19:48:58 -0500, "cshenk"
>>> > >> >> wrote: >>
>>>>>>>>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, March 21, 2018 at 12:04:06 AM UTC-10, Cindy
>>>>>>> Hamilton >>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No, you don't. I was just underlining your ignorance of
>>> the >> >> >>>>> mainland, as you so often do people's ignorance of
>>> Hawaii. >> >> > > > > >
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've lived on the mainland so why would you think I don't
>>> know >> >> what's >>>> going on over there? What you underline is
>>> that I'm >> >> ignorant about >>>> where you live. Enlighten me.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are many parts of the USA that are Canada level and
>>>>> quite a >> few >>> north of it. If nothing else, Alaska comes to
>>>>> mind but some >> on the >>> east coast as well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like where on the east coast is the USA more northerly than
>>>>>>>>> Canada???
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Parts of 27 states are north of parts of Canada
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://barelybad.com/north_of_canada_map.htm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But NOT on the east coast!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maine isnt on the east coast? It fronts the Atlantic last I
>>> checked >> > and parts are north of Quebec.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am east coast and Maine is south of here, and I have yet to see a
>>>>> map with Maine north of Quebec. Sheesh scary to think you call
>>>>> yourself USN!
>>>>
>>>> Dave just posted a map. By eye, looks like the northernmost tip of
>>>> Maine is a little north of Quebec. If that's wrong, then they are
>>>> close.
>>>
>>> Quebec is not the east coast, NS, PEI, NB Labrador, NFLD is.
>>
>> You are reaching for straws now. Quebec is definately on the eastern
>> side of Canada. It's just not right on the water.
>
> Well don't visit Quebec and tell them they are easterners, as far as
> they are concerned there is nothing east of Quebec.
>
CanaDUH is full of brain dead liberals anyway, **** 'em.

On 2018-03-25 12:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 08:05:38 -0300, wrote:

>> No, after posting about all the mid-country and west coast areas that
>> are more southerly than the USA, she then added, also the east coast.
>> That is incorrect, none of the east coast is south of the US east
>> coast.
>
> That's not what she meant. There are places on the US east coast that
> are more northern than parts of Canada (not Canada's east coast, but
> Canada in general).
>

With the exception of Lucretia, everyone here seems to understand that.

"cshenk" wrote in message
...

Ophelia wrote:

>
>
> "cshenk" wrote in message
> ...
>
> Ophelia wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Cheri" wrote in message news > >
> >"Ophelia" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> >> "Cheri" wrote in message news > > >
> >>"jmcquown" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On 3/24/2018 11:19 AM, Cheri wrote:
> >>>>"Ophelia" > wrote in message
> >> > > ...
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > "Nancy Young" wrote in message
> >> > > > ... On 3/24/2018 7:07 AM,
> >> > > > Ophelia wrote:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > "cshenk" wrote
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > LOL, anyways! Nothing wrong with a guy who has to actually
> >> > > > > clean the bathroom gving input!
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > It's a bit sad when a guy has to stand up to pee to feel
> >> > > > > manly <g>
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Just think how sad for the men in Switzerland who aren't
> >> > > > allowed to pee standing up on Sundays! I should ask my
> >> > > > brother if he risks deportation by breaking that law.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm sure there was some reason for a law like that, every
> >> > > > place has some kooky rules on the books.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > nancy
> >> > > >
> >> > > > ==
> >> > > >
> >> > > > LOL poor wee souls <g>
> >> > >
> >> > > How would htey know if they're peeing standing up or not? LOL
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > That's a good question, Cheri!
> >> >
> >> > As for kooky laws, they're everwhere. In McDonald, OH (where my
> >> > grandparents settled and my parents grew up) it was illegal to
> >> > parade your duck down down Ohio Avenue. (Growing up I heard it
> >> > as "you cannot walk your duck without a leash".) I gather there
> >> > are quite a few old laws that nobody ever bothered to rescind as
> >> > time marched on... but no one enforces them, either.
> >> >
> >> > My SO and I were once driving back from an art show in the
> >> > midwest. We stopped at a place (I cannot recall which state,
> >> > Wisconsin, maybe) to get a bite to eat. We were in a small town
> >> > where the blue line ran right down the middle of the restaurant.
> >> > If you opted to be seated on the left side, they could serve beer
> >> > and wine with your meal. On the right side, soft drinks only.
> >> > THAT was weird. (We opted to have a beer with our meal.)
> >> >
> >> > Jill
> > >
> > >
> >> Yes, that reminds me of the old days and the smoking and non
> smoking >> sections in restaurants, tables very close together, but
> one >> designated for
> >> smokers, and the table very close to it for non-smokers. Hard to
> >> believe these days.
> > >
> >> Cheri
> > >
> >> ==
> > >
> >> I am not understanding the term 'duck down' in that context.
> Anyone >> enlighten me?
> > >
> >> " illegal to parade your duck down down ..."
> >
> > If you have a pet ducks it was illegal to parade them (walk them)
> > down the street without a leash, or up the street for that matter. I
> > think it's sort of like when ducks are walking with the mother duck
> > and the ducklings behind her in a row. I could be wrong.
> >
> > Cheri
> >
> > ==
> >
> > Gosh! Thanks Are ducks a common pet?
>
> No but we've got an area near me where folks would love that law!
> Natural bird habitat and way too many ducks and geese.
>
> It can actually cause traffic problems here ;-)
> ==
>
> Oh dear <g>

Yeah, about 3 weeks ago I was headed to the Doctor with Don and it was
an 'all stop' on the Virginia Beach Blvd (this isn't technically an
interstate but it's 3 lanes each side for a 6 lane highway). Momma and
Daddy duck where leading 3-4 little ducks across it. It's generally
seasonal for that activity but folks have to know to watch out or you
get rear ended by some obvlious person who didnt notice traffic stopped.

Fortunately the Doctor was quite understanding when I said 'sorry,
traffic jam due to ducks, got here soon as we could' (grin). Gary can
tell you too, it's a short but notable thing here. We even had a few
messages about it in the group.

==

Aww ))

On 3/25/2018 10:44 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 3/25/2018 9:56 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 3/24/2018 1:18 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
>>> Yes, that reminds me of the old days and the smoking and non smoking
>>> sections in restaurants, tables very close together, but one
>>> designated for smokers, and the table very close to it for
>>> non-smokers. Hard to believe these days.
>
>> When I worked at Dead Lobster (heh) as a teen there were three booths
>> designated as non-smoking.* There was nothing separating them from all
>> the other tables and booths so it really didn't make any sense.
>
> Those smoking section laws were at least a good start to giving people
> the idea that maybe not everyone wanted to share their cigarettes.
> Of course the sections didn't work but it got people thinking.
>
> nancy

True, but at the time asking "smoking or non-?" didn't really have any
meaning.

Jill

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
wrote:

>On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 19:05:03 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 2018-03-24 6:09 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 17:52:44 -0400, Dave Smith
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2018-03-24 3:24 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 10:56:10 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a note for you too....I'm not a member of the NRA. I do not
>>>>>> own any guns myself. If I did though, I would be a responsible
>>>>>> user, not a nut case that runs out and shoots people. There is
>>>>>> evil in our world and the only defense is the ability to fight
>>>>>> back. You should think hard about your anti-gun mission.
>>>>>
>>>>> Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>>>>> it all. It's so simple.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be simple if it was true. Some countries with very strict gun
>>>> laws have murder rates even higher than the US.
>>>
>>> Countries such as?
>>
>>Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>
>You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>higher than the US".
>
>I'm asking you which ones.

Well, Dave?

On 2018-03-25 1:22 PM, jmcquown wrote:

>> Those smoking section laws were at least a good start to giving people
>> the idea that maybe not everyone wanted to share their cigarettes.
>> Of course the sections didn't work but it got people thinking.
>>
>> nancy
>
> True, but at the time asking "smoking or non-?" didn't really have any
> meaning.


Attitudes about smoking have changed. 50-60 years ago a lot more people
smoked. In the late 60s we had a smoking area at our high school. You
could smoke in stores, restaurants, bars, movie theatres, on buses and
in airplanes. You could smoke in hospital rooms..... provided there was
oxygen being used. We could smoke in lectures and seminars in
university.

Back then it was a personal choice whether to smoke or not. Some people
refrained from smoking for health reasons, or because they objected to
the smell and the mess. Expense wasn't much of an issue because they
were a lot cheaper. Then the focus shifted from the health of the
smokers to the health of the non smokers AKA second hand smokers.

On 3/25/2018 1:22 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 3/25/2018 10:44 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> Those smoking section laws were at least a good start to giving people
>> the idea that maybe not everyone wanted to share their cigarettes.
>> Of course the sections didn't work but it got people thinking.

> True, but at the time asking "smoking or non-?" didn't really have any
> meaning.

No, the smoke didn't know it wasn't supposed to drift into the
non-smoking section. Some restaurants tried installing smoke eaters
but they didn't work very well and were noisy.

nancy

Gary wrote:

> cshenk wrote:
> >
> > Fortunately the Doctor was quite understanding when I said 'sorry,
> > traffic jam due to ducks, got here soon as we could' (grin). Gary
> > can tell you too, it's a short but notable thing here. We even had
> > a few messages about it in the group.
>
> Gary can tell them about this? A few years back the swimming
> pool here was mostly emptied. A mother duck (in the spring) led
> her 7-8 little ones into the pool with some water left in the
> deep end. When it was time to leave, the little ones couldn't get
> out. The mom was standing on the edge, yelling at them to get
> out but they were still too tiny.
>
> Early that morning, a neighbor and I went in there and one by one
> scooped up the ducklings and set them by the mother. They all
> waited until we got the last duckling, then mom led them all out
> to wherever they were living at the time.

LOL! Happens here all the time that we have duckie events but that one
is special!

Some smartass added a sign to 'troops in formation have right of way'
to insert Ducks. 'Troops and Ducks in formation have right of way'
(snicker!).

You realize half the people here think we are joking but we aren't!

Dave Smith wrote:

> On 2018-03-25 11:49 AM, cshenk wrote:
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Dave just posted a map. By eye, looks like the northernmost
> > > > tip of Maine is a little north of Quebec. If that's wrong,
> > > > then they are close.
> > >
> > > Quebec is not the east coast, NS, PEI, NB Labrador, NFLD is.
> >
> > You are reaching for straws now. Quebec is definately on the
> > eastern side of Canada. It's just not right on the water.
> >
>
>
> Actually, it does touch the water. It runs the length of the Gulf of
> St.Lawrence, and it abuts Hudson Bay and the Hudson Strait, which
> empty into the Atlantic.
>
> Lucretia seems to be stuck in the mindset that north can only be a
> cardinal point from her location. I have no trouble with the idea
> that many US states are situated further north than some parts of
> Canada. Some or all of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York,
> Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, North and South Dakota, Wyoming,
> Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon sit further north than where I
> am in the Niagara Peninsula. Everyone here but Lucretia seems to
> understand.

One of the low awesome places to get to by sea, is Halifax. It was
fortified to the max when sea would have been the attack route and you
go endless miles from fortification to firtification to reach the
harbor docking area. Did that about 1996 or so on the USS John C
Stennis.

wrote:
>
> ... none of the east coast is south of the US east
> coast.

lol!

jmcquown wrote:
>
> When I worked at Dead Lobster (heh) as a teen there were three booths
> designated as non-smoking. There was nothing separating them from all
> the other tables and booths so it really didn't make any sense.
>
> Jill

Same way at Shoneys back when my daughter was young and we went
there every Friday night.

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> Those smoking section laws were at least a good start to giving people
> the idea that maybe not everyone wanted to share their cigarettes.
> Of course the sections didn't work but it got people thinking.

Even when I smoked, I never smoked in a restaurant but some
people did back then and used a plate as an ashtray. So very
nasty.

I took a woman out to eat at Shoneys one night. I told her before
we went in that we can sit in the non-smoking section...as it's
closer to the salad bar that we went for.

She immediately threw a fit and said, I have a right to smoke in
there and I will smoke in there. I started up the car and took
her to Burger King and we got take out...sat in the car and I
parked so her smoke would blow out of her window.

Oddly she was fine and preferred that - so she didn't get mad.
LOL!

cshenk wrote:
>
> Fortunately the Doctor was quite understanding when I said 'sorry,
> traffic jam due to ducks, got here soon as we could' (grin). Gary can
> tell you too, it's a short but notable thing here. We even had a few
> messages about it in the group.

Gary can tell them about this? A few years back the swimming
pool here was mostly emptied. A mother duck (in the spring) led
her 7-8 little ones into the pool with some water left in the
deep end. When it was time to leave, the little ones couldn't get
out. The mom was standing on the edge, yelling at them to get
out but they were still too tiny.

Early that morning, a neighbor and I went in there and one by one
scooped up the ducklings and set them by the mother. They all
waited until we got the last duckling, then mom led them all out
to wherever they were living at the time.

On 3/25/2018 2:27 PM, Gary wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>> Those smoking section laws were at least a good start to giving people
>> the idea that maybe not everyone wanted to share their cigarettes.
>> Of course the sections didn't work but it got people thinking.
>
> Even when I smoked, I never smoked in a restaurant but some
> people did back then and used a plate as an ashtray. So very
> nasty.

It's one of those things, you remember the thoughtless ones and
never notice the rest who weren't obnoxious.
> I took a woman out to eat at Shoneys one night. I told her before
> we went in that we can sit in the non-smoking section...as it's
> closer to the salad bar that we went for.
>
> She immediately threw a fit and said, I have a right to smoke in
> there and I will smoke in there.

Date over. (laugh)

>I started up the car and took
> her to Burger King and we got take out...sat in the car and I
> parked so her smoke would blow out of her window.
>
> Oddly she was fine and preferred that - so she didn't get mad.
> LOL!

I wouldn't have minded Stewart's or A&W with the carhop and the window
tray. I used to enjoy those places.

nancy

On 2018-03-25 1:25 PM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
> On Sun 25 Mar 2018 08:41:41a, Dave Smith told us...
>
>> On 2018-03-25 9:56 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> On 3/24/2018 1:18 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, that reminds me of the old days and the smoking and non
>>>> smoking sections in restaurants, tables very close together, but
>>>> one designated for smokers, and the table very close to it for
>>>> non-smokers. Hard to believe these days.
>>>>
>>>> Cheri
>>>
>>> When I worked at Dead Lobster (heh) as a teen there were three
>>> booths designated as non-smoking.ÂÂ* There was nothing separating
>>> them from all the other tables and booths so it really didn't
>>> make any sense.
>>
>> My brother told me about going to a restaurant in Ottawa and
>> sitting in the non smoking side.... because he smokes. He was the
>> only customer when he arrived. He ordered a coffee and lit up a
>> cigarette while he read the newspaper. A woman came in and sat at
>> a table right next to the boundary of smoking and non smoking
>> areas and then made a big fuss about the smoke.
>>
>> I was once in a restaurant in Victoria BC with a friend and her
>> husband, who is a bit of an odd ball. We were at a table near the
>> wall in the non smoking area and the far opposite side from the
>> smoking area. Someone at the far end of the restaurant lit up a
>> cigarette and he immediately started coughing and carrying on
>> about the smoke. It hit him faster than the speed of smoke.
>>
>> There is no smoking at all in restaurants, stores, malls or other
>> workplaces here, or in parks, playgrounds, on publicly owned
>> property, other than roads, parking lots, walking trails or
>> beaches. Smokers are upset but.... tough... their habit really
>> stinks.
>>
>
> When we lived in Cleveland up until 2000 there were no smoking bans.
> When we moved AZ in Febrary 2000 there were smooking bans almost
> everywhere, in places of business, restaurants, etc. At that time,
> however, if a restaurant had a separate bar, smoking was accecptable.
> Within a couple of years a total smoking ban cam into effect. The
> smoking ban does not apply to the outdoors, hoever, you must remain
> 20 feet from the entrance to any business, office building, or
> restaurant. Having said that, I think it's absolutely assinine to
> ban smoking in all open air areas where there is virtually nothing,
> although it may come to that.
>
There has been a ban in Alberta for many years but the Tsutina band
built a casino on their land on the edge of Calgary and has siphoned off
most of the casino business as they allow smoking.
In Alberta, smoking is banned outside within 10m of any doorway to
places of business.

jmcquown wrote:
>
> Of course we think that. My only comment about most of this close the
> lid on the toilet discussion was that by rote, I close the lid before I
> flush. I've always done so. Otherwise, why have a lid?

When Mr.Kitty was a fairly young cat, he jumped up on the toilet
seat one day, slipped and fell in. He was too small to get out.
Luckily I was there when it happened. From then on, I closed the
lid. Even years later, I had a few jumping ferrets and the same
could have happened.

"U.S. Janet B." wrote:
>
> On Sat, 24 Mar 2018 12:23:54 -0500, Gary > wrote:
> >Difference is...we deal in reality, not the ultimate Disney world
> >where everyone would be all happy and friendly if we only
> >outlawed weapons. The liberals (leftover hippies from the late
> >60's) don't seem to grasp that we live in (and have always lived
> >in) an evil world. Humans are inherently evil. There has never
> >been total peace on earth among humans.
>
> I have to tell you I was never a hippie. It is clear that you
> extremely uninformed

It's clear to me
that we merely disagree.

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 9:50:11 AM UTC-10, graham wrote:
> There has been a ban in Alberta for many years but the Tsutina band
> built a casino on their land on the edge of Calgary and has siphoned off
> most of the casino business as they allow smoking.
> In Alberta, smoking is banned outside within 10m of any doorway to
> places of business.

Hurray for smoking!

On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >

>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>
>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>> higher than the US".
>>
>> I'm asking you which ones.
>
> Well, Dave?
>
Too lazy to do your own research? You were the one who claimed
"Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
it all. It's so simple."



Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate of
8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.

Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is 60,
12 times that of the US.

Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre. There murder rate stands
at 35, 7 times that of the US.


If you want more you can try to figure out how to look them up on your own.

On 2018-03-25 3:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>
>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>
>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>> higher than the US".
>>>
>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>
>> Well, Dave?
>>
> Too lazy to do your own research?Â* You were the one who claimed
> "Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
> it all. It's so simple."
>
>
>
> Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate of
> 8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>
> Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is 60,
> 12 times that of the US.
>
> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre.Â* There murder rate stands
> at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>
And they are all pretty well lawless societies!

On 2018-03-25 5:40 PM, graham wrote:
> On 2018-03-25 3:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>>
>>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>>
>>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>>> higher than the US".
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>>
>>> Well, Dave?
>>>
>> Too lazy to do your own research?Â* You were the one who claimed
>> "Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>> it all. It's so simple."
>>
>>
>>
>> Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate
>> of 8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>>
>> Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is
>> 60, 12 times that of the US.
>>
>> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre.Â* There murder rate stands
>> at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>>
> And they are all pretty well lawless societies!
>

They may well be, but Bruce claimed that countries with strict control
have a LOT less gun deaths. It doesn't always work that way. Canada has
strict control laws. The fact that handguns are restricted firearms and
subject to strict regulations does little to reduce the number of
shootings committed by young black male gang members.

There are too many other factors. People often point to the stats for
NYC and Washington DC which had strict controls and high crime rates.
It may be that the strict controls are in response to high homicide
rates, and it is not as if there are border controls between those
cities and bordering states and cities.

On 3/25/2018 6:33 PM, Dave Smith wrote:

>>>
>>> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>>> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre.Â* There murder rate
>>> stands at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>>>
>> And they are all pretty well lawless societies!
>>
>
> They may well be, but Bruce claimed that countries with strict control
> have a LOT less gun deaths. It doesn't always work that way.Â* Canada has
> strict control laws. The fact that handguns are restricted firearms and
> subject to strict regulations does little to reduce the number of
> shootings committed by young black male gang members.
>
> There are too many other factors. People often point to the stats for
> NYC and Washington DC which had strict controls and high crime rates. It
> may be that the strict controls are in response to high homicide rates,
> and it is not as if there are border controls between those cities and
> bordering states and cities.
>

Fact is, we are 200 years too late for serious gun control. Laws help a
bit, but will not eliminate violence. There are laws that say you
cannot rob banks and steal cars, but it happens quite a bit from what I
see on the news.

Steps should be taken to restrict sales to nut jobs, safety courses,
background checks, etc has to be in place. Education of gun owners so
they don't have their legally owned guns stolen. There is no need for
bump stocks on a hunting rifle but again, too late to eliminate what is
already out there.

On 2018-03-25 7:15 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 3/25/2018 6:33 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> There are too many other factors. People often point to the stats for
>> NYC and Washington DC which had strict controls and high crime rates.
>> It may be that the strict controls are in response to high homicide
>> rates, and it is not as if there are border controls between those
>> cities and bordering states and cities.
>>
>
> Fact is, we are 200 years too late for serious gun control.Â* Laws help a
> bit, but will not eliminate violence.Â* There are laws that say you
> cannot rob banks and steal cars, but it happens quite a bit from what I
> see on the news.


Two hundred years ago, rifles and pistols were flintlocks that fired 2,
maybe three rounds per minute, and to bear arms meant to be part of a
militia unit, not having a 15 round semi automatic pistol on your hip.



> Steps should be taken to restrict sales to nut jobs, safety courses,
> background checks, etc has to be in place.Â* Education of gun owners so
> they don't have their legally owned guns stolen.Â* There is no need for
> bump stocks on a hunting rifle but again, too late to eliminate what is
> already out there.

That is basically what he have here in Canada. In order to acquire
firearms and ammunition, you have to have a licence. In order to get the
licence you have to take a training course and pass a test and a
background check. The licence for restricted firearms is a little more
involved. Except in rare situations, you cannot get a licence to carry
a handgun.

As a firearms owner, I think that is reasonable, and it seems to work.
Unfortunately, most of our firearms homicides are committed by a certain
demographic who ignore the rules, so making more regulations for law
abiding gun owners to deal with is just a waste of time.

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 6:28:44 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> That is basically what he have here in Canada. In order to acquire
> firearms and ammunition, you have to have a licence. In order to get the
> licence you have to take a training course and pass a test and a
> background check. The licence for restricted firearms is a little more
> involved. Except in rare situations, you cannot get a licence to carry
> a handgun.
>
In my state I have to show my driver's license in order to purchase
ammunition. To buy a gun, legally, I had to pass a background check
and in order to legally carry my pistol I had to go through a day
long gun safety course. Then I had to go to a local state licensing
office to be finger printed. One copy for the state and one copy to
the FBI. If I want to continue to legally carry a weapon I have to
renew my permit every four years.

There are many parking lot sales of firearms and they are legal
whether the anti-gun faction likes it or not.
>
> As a firearms owner, I think that is reasonable, and it seems to work.
> Unfortunately, most of our firearms homicides are committed by a certain
> demographic who ignore the rules, so making more regulations for law
> abiding gun owners to deal with is just a waste of time.
>
Same here.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 17:38:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>
>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>
>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>> higher than the US".
>>>
>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>
>> Well, Dave?
>>
>Too lazy to do your own research? You were the one who claimed
>"Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>it all. It's so simple."
>
>
>
>Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate of
>8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>
>Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is 60,
>12 times that of the US.
>
>Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre. There murder rate stands
>at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>
>
>If you want more you can try to figure out how to look them up on your own.

I knew you'd come up with countries like that It doesn't make sense
to compare the US to 3rd world countries and countries with huge law
enforcement problems. Stick with Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan.
That's a sensible comparison.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 15:40:46 -0600, graham > wrote:

>On 2018-03-25 3:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>>
>>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>>
>>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>>> higher than the US".
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>>
>>> Well, Dave?
>>>
>> Too lazy to do your own research?* You were the one who claimed
>> "Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>> it all. It's so simple."
>>
>>
>>
>> Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate of
>> 8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>>
>> Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is 60,
>> 12 times that of the US.
>>
>> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre.* There murder rate stands
>> at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>>
>And they are all pretty well lawless societies!

Exactly.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 18:33:42 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-03-25 5:40 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 2018-03-25 3:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>>>
>>>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>>>
>>>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>>>> higher than the US".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Dave?
>>>>
>>> Too lazy to do your own research?* You were the one who claimed
>>> "Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>>> it all. It's so simple."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate
>>> of 8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>>>
>>> Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is
>>> 60, 12 times that of the US.
>>>
>>> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>>> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre.* There murder rate stands
>>> at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>>>
>> And they are all pretty well lawless societies!
>>
>
>They may well be, but Bruce claimed that countries with strict control
>have a LOT less gun deaths. It doesn't always work that way. Canada has
>strict control laws. The fact that handguns are restricted firearms and
>subject to strict regulations does little to reduce the number of
>shootings committed by young black male gang members.

Nevertheless, Canada has a lot less gun deaths. And that's what I
said.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 23:01:56 -0000 (UTC), Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 25 Mar 2018 03:33:42p, Dave Smith told us...
>
>> They may well be, but Bruce claimed that countries with strict
>> control have a LOT less gun deaths. It doesn't always work that
>> way. Canada has strict control laws. The fact that handguns are
>> restricted firearms and subject to strict regulations does little
>> to reduce the number of shootings committed by young black male
>> gang members.
>>
>> There are too many other factors. People often point to the stats
>> for NYC and Washington DC which had strict controls and high crime
>> rates. It may be that the strict controls are in response to high
>> homicide rates, and it is not as if there are border controls
>> between those cities and bordering states and cities.
>>
>>
>
>Bruce "clains" a lot of things.

Thank you. I do my best.

On 2018-03-25 8:13 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 17:38:29 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>>
>>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>>
>>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>>> higher than the US".
>>>>
>>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>>
>>> Well, Dave?
>>>
>> Too lazy to do your own research? You were the one who claimed
>> "Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>> it all. It's so simple."
>>
>>
>>
>> Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate of
>> 8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>>
>> Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is 60,
>> 12 times that of the US.
>>
>> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre. There murder rate stands
>> at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>>
>>
>> If you want more you can try to figure out how to look them up on your own.
>
> I knew you'd come up with countries like that It doesn't make sense
> to compare the US to 3rd world countries and countries with huge law
> enforcement problems. Stick with Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan.
> That's a sensible comparison.
>


Really??? You knew that there were countries that proved my point and
then sat back, played stupid and demanded I prove it?

You made a blanket statement that countries with strict gun control
had a lot less gun deaths, and that said it all, that it was so simple.
Apparently it was no so simple, and you knew it all along, but thought
you could play stupid.

On 2018-03-25 8:13 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 15:40:46 -0600, graham > wrote:
>
>> On 2018-03-25 3:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>> On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>>>
>>>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>>>
>>>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>>>> higher than the US".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Dave?
>>>>
>>> Too lazy to do your own research?Â* You were the one who claimed
>>> "Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>>> it all. It's so simple."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate of
>>> 8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>>>
>>> Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is 60,
>>> 12 times that of the US.
>>>
>>> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>>> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre.Â* There murder rate stands
>>> at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>>>
>> And they are all pretty well lawless societies!
>
> Exactly.

" Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
it all. It's so simple."

Your words.

Apparently it isn't so simple.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:12:19 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-03-25 8:13 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 17:38:29 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>>>
>>>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>>>
>>>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>>>> higher than the US".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>>>
>>>> Well, Dave?
>>>>
>>> Too lazy to do your own research? You were the one who claimed
>>> "Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>>> it all. It's so simple."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate of
>>> 8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>>>
>>> Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is 60,
>>> 12 times that of the US.
>>>
>>> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>>> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre. There murder rate stands
>>> at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want more you can try to figure out how to look them up on your own.
>>
>> I knew you'd come up with countries like that It doesn't make sense
>> to compare the US to 3rd world countries and countries with huge law
>> enforcement problems. Stick with Europe, Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan.
>> That's a sensible comparison.
>>
>
>
>Really??? You knew that there were countries that proved my point and
>then sat back, played stupid and demanded I prove it?
>
> You made a blanket statement that countries with strict gun control
>had a lot less gun deaths, and that said it all, that it was so simple.
>Apparently it was no so simple, and you knew it all along, but thought
>you could play stupid.

It's very simple. All comparable countries have stricter gun control
and less gun deaths. I'm sure thare are a lot of hellholes where
everything is different, but I don't think the US is a hellhole or
should be compared with them.

On 2018-03-25 9:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:12:19 -0400, Dave Smith

>> Really??? You knew that there were countries that proved my point and
>> then sat back, played stupid and demanded I prove it?
>>
>> You made a blanket statement that countries with strict gun control
>> had a lot less gun deaths, and that said it all, that it was so simple.
>> Apparently it was no so simple, and you knew it all along, but thought
>> you could play stupid.
>
> It's very simple. All comparable countries have stricter gun control
> and less gun deaths. I'm sure thare are a lot of hellholes where
> everything is different, but I don't think the US is a hellhole or
> should be compared with them.
>

Your blanket statement said nothing about them having to be comparable
countries. You said it was very simple.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:17:36 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-03-25 8:13 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 15:40:46 -0600, graham > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2018-03-25 3:38 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>>>> On 2018-03-25 1:30 PM, Bruce wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 16:39:20 +1100, Bruce >
>>>>
>>>>>>> Really? You want to make broad statements and then deny the reality?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You said "countries with very strict gun laws have murder rates even
>>>>>> higher than the US".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm asking you which ones.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, Dave?
>>>>>
>>>> Too lazy to do your own research?* You were the one who claimed
>>>> "Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>>>> it all. It's so simple."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uganda has very strict gun control regulations and has a murder rate of
>>>> 8.7 per 100,000 compared to the US at 5.
>>>>
>>>> Jamaica has strict gun control regulations and their murder rate is 60,
>>>> 12 times that of the US.
>>>>
>>>> Columbia has strict gun control, including the prohibition of semi
>>>> automatic firearms greater than .22 calibre.* There murder rate stands
>>>> at 35, 7 times that of the US.
>>>>
>>> And they are all pretty well lawless societies!
>>
>> Exactly.
>
>" Countries with strict gun laws have a LOT less gun deaths. That says
>it all. It's so simple."
>
>Your words.
>
>Apparently it isn't so simple.

Strict gun laws that are actually enforced, not just on paper. Duh.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:28:43 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2018-03-25 9:18 PM, Bruce wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Mar 2018 21:12:19 -0400, Dave Smith
>
>>> Really??? You knew that there were countries that proved my point and
>>> then sat back, played stupid and demanded I prove it?
>>>
>>> You made a blanket statement that countries with strict gun control
>>> had a lot less gun deaths, and that said it all, that it was so simple.
>>> Apparently it was no so simple, and you knew it all along, but thought
>>> you could play stupid.
>>
>> It's very simple. All comparable countries have stricter gun control
>> and less gun deaths. I'm sure thare are a lot of hellholes where
>> everything is different, but I don't think the US is a hellhole or
>> should be compared with them.
>>
>
>Your blanket statement said nothing about them having to be comparable
>countries. You said it was very simple.

It is very simple. You're playing a silly game.

On 3/25/2018 4:13 PM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Of course we think that. My only comment about most of this close the
>> lid on the toilet discussion was that by rote, I close the lid before I
>> flush. I've always done so. Otherwise, why have a lid?
>
> When Mr.Kitty was a fairly young cat, he jumped up on the toilet
> seat one day, slipped and fell in. He was too small to get out.
> Luckily I was there when it happened. From then on, I closed the
> lid. Even years later, I had a few jumping ferrets and the same
> could have happened.
>
At my last apartment my cat Persia used to jump on the lid of the toilet
then up onto the vanity/sink when I was brushing my teeth at bedtime.
She'd put her face under the running water to drink. (She liked
drinking running water so much I wound up buying her a pet fountain...
mostly so I wouldn't spit toothpaste on her head.) She would not have
been happy to find herself IN the toilet if I'd left the lid up.

Having said that, it's just a habit to close the lid before flushing.
I've always done it.

Persia was a quirky cat. She'd walk around the edge of the bathtub when
I was taking a shower, stick her head around the curtain and yell at me.
Don't you know you're getting wet?! LOL

Jill

Bruce wrote:
>
> Dave Smith wrote:
> >You don't have to outlaw weapons. Just stop carrying them around
> >prepared to use them. The fact that your homicide rate is so much higher
> >than ours should indicate that carrying does not make you safer.
>
> It's that simple. Strange that so many don't get that simple truth.

LOL! 2 *completely* clueless foreigners judging the USA. You
think all usains carry guns everywhere for protection? Sounds
like both of you have been watching too many old westerns on tv
where every single american carried a revolver in a holster and a
rifle on his horse saddle?

Dave - you recently visited the southern usa. Did you feel the
need to carry a firearm while you were here? See any pickup
trucks with rifle racks on the roads? Were you ever threatened by
someone with a firearm? Did you make it home unharmed?

Then there's Bruce that won't eat meat because he doesn't support
killing animals, yet he promotes killing all wild dogs and also
doesn't give a crap about the animals that unfortunately happen
to live in the sea.

We here have maybe a higher gun/death average but we also have a
higher than average amount of gang/bad people especially in the
larger cities. Most of those stastistics refer to bad people
shooting other bad people and most times late at night.

Many Americans own guns but don't leave their houses with them
for protection and most never need them for protection in their
homes. Most of us don't cause these problems - it's the high
amount of bad people and if they want (and often do) kill
themselves off, who cares? Less bad people. win/win situation,
imo.

I haven't owned a gun since I was about 16. I sold my shotgun
then because I didn't want to hunt animals. I never even
considered keeping it for protection.

On 2018-03-26 11:59 AM, Gary wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>>> You don't have to outlaw weapons. Just stop carrying them around
>>> prepared to use them. The fact that your homicide rate is so much higher
>>> than ours should indicate that carrying does not make you safer.
>>
>> It's that simple. Strange that so many don't get that simple truth.
>
> LOL! 2 *completely* clueless foreigners judging the USA. You
> think all usains carry guns everywhere for protection? Sounds
> like both of you have been watching too many old westerns on tv
> where every single american carried a revolver in a holster and a
> rifle on his horse saddle?
>
> Dave - you recently visited the southern usa. Did you feel the
> need to carry a firearm while you were here? See any pickup
> trucks with rifle racks on the roads? Were you ever threatened by
> someone with a firearm? Did you make it home unharmed?

AAMOF, I did not see any down there. I have seen it in in other parts
of the US.
I am not opposed to people owning firearms, but I have questions about
the unwarranted use of deadly force. I have not been shot at or
threatened in the US, but I know some people who were shot at. One of
them had a bullet hole though his shirt collar. I don't appreciate the
need for so many people to be armed with handguns in public for
production. It does not make everyone safer. If it did, your homicide
would be lower than the rest of the civilized world instead of so much
higher.


> We here have maybe a higher gun/death average but we also have a
> higher than average amount of gang/bad people especially in the
> larger cities. Most of those stastistics refer to bad people
> shooting other bad people and most times late at night.

There was no gang activity when Trevon Martin was shot by a wannebe
lynch mob. There have been lots of high profile people who have been
shot and killed.


> I haven't owned a gun since I was about 16. I sold my shotgun
> then because I didn't want to hunt animals. I never even
> considered keeping it for protection.
>


I own a number of firearms.... shot guns, rifles and handguns. I use
them to shoot at clay pigeons and paper targets. They are securely
locked up when not at the range.

On Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:59:19 -0500, Gary > wrote:

>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>> >You don't have to outlaw weapons. Just stop carrying them around
>> >prepared to use them. The fact that your homicide rate is so much higher
>> >than ours should indicate that carrying does not make you safer.
>>
>> It's that simple. Strange that so many don't get that simple truth.
>
>LOL! 2 *completely* clueless foreigners judging the USA. You
>think all usains carry guns everywhere for protection?

No.


>Sounds
>like both of you have been watching too many old westerns on tv
>where every single american carried a revolver in a holster and a
>rifle on his horse saddle?

Hey, I answered "No". Why do you continue as if I answered "Yes"?

>Dave - you recently visited the southern usa. Did you feel the
>need to carry a firearm while you were here? See any pickup
>trucks with rifle racks on the roads? Were you ever threatened by
>someone with a firearm? Did you make it home unharmed?
>
>Then there's Bruce that won't eat meat because he doesn't support
>killing animals, yet he promotes killing all wild dogs and also
>doesn't give a crap about the animals that unfortunately happen
>to live in the sea.

I must have a complex personality.

>We here have maybe a higher gun/death average but we also have a
>higher than average amount of gang/bad people especially in the
>larger cities. Most of those stastistics refer to bad people
>shooting other bad people and most times late at night.

Because guns are so easily available. What about all those kids who
start shooting people at their school? Or mental patients like that
batman guy?

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 12:24:38 PM UTC-5, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> I am not opposed to people owning firearms, but I have questions about
> the unwarranted use of deadly force. I don't appreciate the
> need for so many people to be armed with handguns in public for
> production. It does not make everyone safer. If it did, your homicide
> would be lower than the rest of the civilized world instead of so much
> higher.
>
You fail to understand it's not the armed law abiding citizen that is
doing all this mayhem. It's usually some cretin living in high crime
areas, a product of the welfare system and public housing, robbing and
killing, and dealing drugs.

We don't wave guns around like an idiot. You were probably in contact
or near vicinity while in the South of someone who was armed but you
didn't have a clue they were armed.
>
> There was no gang activity when Trevon Martin was shot by a wannebe
> lynch mob. There have been lots of high profile people who have been
> shot and killed.
>
Ah yes, Trayvon Martin, thug in the making.

Dave Smith wrote:

> I own a number of firearms.... shot guns, rifles and handguns. I use
> them to shoot at clay pigeons and paper targets. They are securely
> locked up when not at the range.

We have a small gauge shotgun, same use mostly but also on a rare
occasion, Don will go hunting with the guys and get a few rabbits or
maybe a small type of other game which gets dressed out and eaten here.

I don't know much about hunting but I believe he takes a .22 shell so
this is no elephant gun (grin).