Fuel Cell cogen

[Derek Broughton]

They said that reduced gun ownership results in less people being killed
by gunshot.

No they didn't. There was no Cullen inquiry at the "Uni of Ottawa".
Ottawa's in Canada. Lord Cullen was in Britain. You're manufacturing
facts.

 

[Derek Broughton]

Economic situation. What because a man/woman doesn't have something
that gives them the right to kill me. hurt me.

Pull your head out of your ass.

It's a fair question. Of course economics doesn't give anyone the right to
kill someone else. But there's no doubt that crime is higher in
depressions and among the poor (OK, that might be more a matter of
prosecution - but it still affects the crime statistics). If a rise in
crime happens to coincide with both a change in gun laws and a depressed
economy, it's impossible to say that the change in the gun laws caused the
rise until the economic situation changes (when you still won't _know_ but
you'll have a better statistical correlation).

 

[News]

You are, beyond any doubt, not "safer" where you live than I am. No
statistics anywhere, firearms related or not, would show you that except
(perhaps) one - I have a statistically higher chance of getting certain
cancers than many of my own countrymen, so possibly more-so than you as
well. Otherwise, I live in one of the safest areas of one of the safest
countries in the world. This is an argument you couldn't possibly win...

I'd have no qualms though agreeing that you're probably both safer and have
a higher quality of life than you would _on average_, in the US. But then
again, you're probably "safer" in the rural US than you would be in

London.

I disagree. Those US rednecks are tooled up 24/7. I lived in London for a
long time and never found any problems whatsoever. A very safe city, when
consider the size and its multi-national, multi-cultural population.

 

[News]

No they didn't. There was no Cullen inquiry at the "Uni of Ottawa".
Ottawa's in Canada. Lord Cullen was in Britain. You're manufacturing
facts.

Look at the website link I gave you.

 

[Derek Broughton]

Look at the website link I gave you.

The only link given in this branch of the thread was to the Fraser Institute
report, which makes no mention of Cullen. I did try checking one of your
other references, and it didn't actually take me to any meaningful data -
just a welcome page.

There has been NO "Cullen inquiry at the Uni of Ottawa". Even if there had
been, 1996 was _before_ our current gun restrictions. If you're not
manufacturing facts, you're accepting manufactured facts from dubious
Internet resources.

 

[Dave Hinz]

It happens regularly, and you won't hear any news about it a year later,
because in the long run owning guns, or not, doesn't make any real
difference in crime - and so no news.

Another interpretation would be that it helps and the press doesn't want
to report that, because it's at odds with it's "impartial" agenda.

The Swiss have very low crime rates
and guns. The British have higher crime rates and no guns. The US has
very high crime rates, and guns.

And yet, all of those crimes are done by...criminals. Until you get
those folks under control, let me continue to protect myself from them.

Canadians have lower crime rates than
Britain or the US, but higher gun ownership than Britain and lower than the
US.

There are cultural differences as well as judicial system differences.
Fact remains, in the US, criminals are armed, and they always will have
the ability to get illegal substances (drugs, guns, whatever...the same
dealers bringing drugs in could just as easily distribute guns, as if
they don't already). Until/unless you get that little problem fixed by,
oh, I don't know, putting the criminals in jail or something whacky like
that, well, don't make me a safe victim to attack.

 

[Dave Hinz]

I don't oppose
your right to simply the hunting with a firearm though. I _do_ oppose the
idea of keeping firearms for personal safety.

(boggle) so, you don't mind if someone hunts with a gun, but if they
defend their life and/or the life of their family with one, you're
saying it's a bad thing?

Why is a criminal's life worth more than mine, Derek? Why do you want
to protect them, and not allow me to protect my family? Serious
question. What's your thought process here?

 

[Dave Hinz]

Now _that's_ BS.

How, specifically?

When _I_ was a kid in England, not only did the criminals
not use guns but neither did the police, and crime was a great deal lower
than it is now.

Yes, and in England, the people are free at the whim of the government
(and a few other governments who seem to try to take over from time to
time).

Meanwhile, in Canada, where gun ownership is getting more
and more restrictive, violent crime continues to decrease.

I've seen mixed cites about that. And your legal system is very
different than ours. We've got left-wing nutjobs here who care more
about criminals than about good people, and your proposals seem aimed at
keeping those criminals safe from us good people. I'm not in favor of
that.

 

[News]

Which country? I have several friends in the UK (Britain and Scotland)
who hunt, and I am led to believe they are not using harsh language to
kill their prey ;-).

Ask them if them carry a handgun around in their pockets? To get a license
for hunting they are fully vetted by the police, not like in the USA where
you show your driving licence to get a gun.

Interesting. You are, I believe, referring
to the United Kingdom?
Yep.

I'm in a quandry. I have several friends
over there, firearm and hunting enthusiasts
as I said, several of whom are also involved in law
enforcement and crime investigation.

They tend to paint a very different picture
of Britain after the firearms laws were enacted.

It is not the Eutopian one you are postulating, sadly.

I have relatives who are policemen. They only see the lousy side of society
and their view is highly tainted and unrepresentative.

The facts say the UK is a safe place. We have the freedom to walk down the
street and not be harassed by people with gun, not even by your law
enforcement friends.

 

[News]

And yet, all of those crimes are done
by...criminals. Until you get
those folks under control, let me continue
to protect myself from them.

The above is incorrect, but let's say it is right to make a point. We have
criminals and no guns, so what you and your gun nuts say is the way to stop
them is to shoot them. Zikes!!!!

There are cultural differences as well
as judicial system differences.
Fact remains, in the US, criminals
are armed, and they always will have
the ability to get illegal substances
(drugs, guns, whatever...

A plan to eliminate guns from a society will mean only hard criminals will
have them. the petty burglar will not. How do I know? That is the
situation here.

 

[Derek Broughton]

No we don't. Just restricted firearms like pistols.

Ah, you're right. I did know that and should have paid more attention
before posting. Locked cabinets are just one option - trigger locks are
usually sufficient.

Learn the rules. http://www.cfc.gc.ca

Well, I don't really need to since I don't ever intend to own any firearms.

 

[Derek Broughton]

(boggle) so, you don't mind if someone hunts with a gun, but if they
defend their life and/or the life of their family with one, you're
saying it's a bad thing?

Absolutely. And I don't have the slightest problem justifying it.

Why is a criminal's life worth more than mine, Derek?

Why is yours worth more than a criminal's? Here, we have a general
principle that NOTHING strips a person of their right to life.

Why do you want
to protect them, and not allow me to protect my family? Serious
question. What's your thought process here?

Serious question to which you've previously demonstrated that you won't
accept a serious answer. I don't believe, and have never seen credible
evidence to demonstrate otherwise, that your owning a gun is any kind of
deterrent to crime. Your argument that the expectation of a homeowner
having a gun deters criminals can be turned on its ear - when law-abiding
citizens are expected to be unarmed, and criminals know that use of a
weapon will be dealt with much more harshly than unarmed crime, they are
vastly less likely to choose to use a weapon. Sure, you might lose some
possessions, but I don't believe your right to a color TV trumps a
criminal's right to life.

Secondly, you (personally) might be perfectly capable of defending yourself
- and knowing exactly who you need to be defended from. That's far from
true of everyone. Innocent people die daily by their own firearms - either
by misuse, or by having them turned on them by a home invader. I have a
friend who swore she saw a peeping tom outside her window, and would have
shot right through the window if she'd been able to find the key to the
trigger lock of her husband's shotgun. I don't consider peeping to be a
capital crime, but she doesn't even _know_ that that's what happened - or
that if she'd shot through her window she wouldn't have injured some
innocent on the street outside.

 

[Derek Broughton]

How, specifically?

How not? Give some evidence. There is none.

Yes, and in England, the people are free at the whim of the government
(and a few other governments who seem to try to take over from time to
time).

Well, there I gave you a specific, and you just chant the party line.

I've seen mixed cites about that.

So have I, but I trust the figures about overall decreases. There are
definite upward trends in areas.

And your legal system is very different than ours.

That is, of course, most of my point. Read Eliot Layton - it's not about
gun law, it's about how a society views guns - and justice - in general.

We've got left-wing nutjobs here who care more
about criminals than about good people,

As opposed to your right-wing nut jobs who care more about personal freedom
than the good of the "people" in general. Even right-wing Canadians are
considered pretty left-wing by American standards.

and your proposals seem aimed at

Not _my_ proposals. The closest I've come to a proposal is saying that I
don't support the use of firearms specifically for defense. I think you'll
find very few Canadians do - even the ones who have campaigned vehemently
against our gun-control legislation.

 

[Dave Hinz]

How not? Give some evidence. There is none.

What's there to evidence? You have criminals. They, by definition, do
things to people which shouldn't be done. If they're going to choose a
victim, will they choose one that they think might be able to defend
themselves, or are they going to choose the one that is clearly unable
to fight back? They're criminals; they're not stupid. They know that a
safe target is more vunlerable than an unsafe target. You propose to
make me into a safe target, apparently.

Well, there I gave you a specific, and you just chant the party line.

What party would that be, exactly?

So have I, but I trust the figures about overall decreases. There are
definite upward trends in areas.

In other words, "mixed". Yes.

That is, of course, most of my point. Read Eliot Layton - it's not about
gun law, it's about how a society views guns - and justice - in general.

It's not about guns, it's about criminals. The gun isn't going to hurt
anyone by itself. It protects me from the criminals, without me even
having to use it, or even _have_ one. They know I _might_ be armed, so
they don't wander into my house at night knowing they're perfectly
safe to do so.

As opposed to your right-wing nut jobs who care more about personal freedom
than the good of the "people" in general.

That's where you're wrong. Firearms in the hands of good people,
improve society. It's the criminals who detract from society. The
machine isn't the problem, it's the person using it illegally.

Even right-wing Canadians are
considered pretty left-wing by American standards.
Yes.


Not _my_ proposals. The closest I've come to a proposal is saying that I
don't support the use of firearms specifically for defense. I think you'll
find very few Canadians do - even the ones who have campaigned vehemently
against our gun-control legislation.

That's great, feel free to be a sitting loon if you want, but I do not
choose to make myself vulnerable to some home-invader just because you
don't think your own life and family are worth defending.

So why do you not support people defending themselves from criminals,
exactly, and how do you feel that dosen't make the criminals' job safer?
I'd prefer them to be nervous and absent, compared to emboldened and
safe.

 

[Dave Hinz]

Absolutely. And I don't have the slightest problem justifying it.

So, I should let a criminal come into my house, kill and/or rape my
family members, and just let 'em do it, because defending myself and my
family would be wrong in your mind?

Why is yours worth more than a criminal's?

Because he's choosing to come into my house to threaten my life and
safety. He has already decided that his life is worth less than my
stuff.

Here, we have a general
principle that NOTHING strips a person of their right to life.

So you'd allow him to take yours, so that you don't take his? That's
idiotic. I'm sorry, but that's just insane.

Serious question to which you've previously demonstrated that you won't
accept a serious answer. I don't believe, and have never seen credible
evidence to demonstrate otherwise, that your owning a gun is any kind of
deterrent to crime.

So, let me guess. If there were two houses, one of which had an NRA
sticker and a sign in the window saying "No Trespassing - survivors will
be prosecuted". The other house has a sign saying "We support gun-free
homes". Let's say you're a criminal, you want to steal something.
Which house would you break into; the one where you're at risk, or the
one where you're clearly not going to get shot at?

Your argument that the expectation of a homeowner
having a gun deters criminals can be turned on its ear -

Can it? Let's see...

when law-abiding
citizens are expected to be unarmed, and criminals know that use of a
weapon will be dealt with much more harshly than unarmed crime, they are
vastly less likely to choose to use a weapon.

It's not about them using a weapon or not, it's about keeping them out
in the first place.

Sure, you might lose some
possessions, but I don't believe your right to a color TV trumps a
criminal's right to life.

In this country, if a criminal breaks into your house, you know a few
things. 1) he expects you to be armed. 2) he's probably prepared for
that. Therefore, 3) He is a credible threat to life and safety.

And hell yes, a criminal who threatens my safety will be stopped from
being a threat.

Secondly, you (personally) might be perfectly capable of defending yourself
- and knowing exactly who you need to be defended from. That's far from
true of everyone. Innocent people die daily by their own firearms - either
by misuse, or by having them turned on them by a home invader.

Yes, there are several hundred accidental deaths in the US every year
from firearms. Groups like the NRA have been working for over a century
to train people in safe handling and storage of guns, and those
accidental death figures have fallen on a nearly continuous basis. But
of course, the press doesn't report about things like that, because they
try to villify the NRA and other groups like them.

I have a
friend who swore she saw a peeping tom outside her window, and would have
shot right through the window if she'd been able to find the key to the
trigger lock of her husband's shotgun.

Well then she's an idiot. That is not a deadly-force situation. Are
you judging everyone by the actions of this person?

I don't consider peeping to be a
capital crime, but she doesn't even _know_ that that's what happened - or
that if she'd shot through her window she wouldn't have injured some
innocent on the street outside.

If you're trying to bait me into supporting her in this, then you're
very mistaken. Now, put that guy inside the house when she's there?
That's an outright threat to life and safety, and she'd have been
completely justified in stopping him in whatever manner necessary.

A criminal gives up his right to live as soon as he threatens me or my
family. If you value a criminal's life more than the life of a
law-abiding citizen, then I think you need to re-evaluate what is
important.

Dave Hinz

 

[Dave Hinz]

The US, again, playing professor here, governs firearm ownership
geopolitically; what works in one place might not in another. For
example, the chance of a normal citizen OWNING a handgun in Chicago or
New York City is just about zero. They are gun-free zones.

Not exactly. The criminals in both of those cities have plenty of guns;
it's just the law-abiding citizens who aren't armed. Of course, this
makes the criminals so much safer, which I'm not sure is a good thing.

 

[News]

The US, again, playing professor here, governs firearm ownership
geopolitically; what works in one place might not in another. For
example, the chance of a normal citizen OWNING a handgun in Chicago or
New York City is just about zero. They are gun-free zones. Posession of
an empty brass casing from a discharged round of ammuntion can get you
arrested in Washington DC. However, in some places in Maine, all you
need to own a pistol is, as you say, a driver's licence.


Ah. too close to the problem, I guess?

They see some bad cases and think it is widespread.

 

[Dave Hinz]

Dave Hinz wrote:

But... but... but... are you saying... are you *suggesting*... are you
even *postulating* that restricting gun ownership only affects *law
abiding* gun owners?!? But... but... but if that's so... that just
changes EVERYTHING...

Um, I'm afraid so, my friend. I know it's shocking, but criminals who
ignore laws about not being criminals, sadly, ignore laws saying they
shouldn't have guns or ammunition.

If the criminals won't give up THEIR guns willingly, but the law
abiding *DO*... why, that might create an imbalance, and those
dastardly criminals, cunning devils are they are, might take advantage
of their newly neutered victims, by becoming bolder and more
agressive...

Well, good thing we're smarter than the criminals and they'd never
notice that power imbalance then. I sure hope none of them read this
and get ideas, because that would be, you know, bad.

And, why, that would make a place like Acton, Maine, where guns are
doled out willy-nilly to anyone who can parallel park:
http://www.actonmaine.com

actually SAFER than the United States capital city, Washington, DC,
where handgun ownership has been prohibited in a true example of
Eutopian safety and freedom for almost THIRTY YEARS:
http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html

I'm sure it's some right-wing propaganda. Maine probably actually
doesn't even exist.

Ok, I'll stop playing now, but thanks for playing "straight man" ;-).

No problem.

Amusingly, there is now a movement afoot to REVERSE the gun-free status
of Washington DC.
http://tinyurl.com/cjkpx

I'm just amazed that people call it "gun-free" when it's really
"guaranteed safe work zone for criminals".

 

[News]

That's where you're wrong.

No, he was right.

Firearms in the hands of good people,
improve society.

Well my friend, they USA experience disproves all of that. Over 29,000 a
year are killed via gunshot. More people since and inc WW2 have been killed
in the USA by gunshot than all those wars.

It's the criminals who detract from society. The
machine isn't the problem, it's the person using it illegally.

Madness.

 

[News]

All guns are bad. Playing with guns is not sport. Sport is football,
basketball and the likes.

Because he's choosing to come into
my house to threaten my life and
safety. He has already decided that
his life is worth less than my stuff.

What if he is only trying to take your TV and sell it?

That is right. Life above property. The materialistic Americans value their
TV over a life.

A cousin of mine saw a teenager grab an old ladies handbag in the street.
He gave chase and caught the kid after a lengthy run - he was given an award
for what he did. The police arrived and the kid was taken away. He was put
away and given help as well. He met this kid about 5 years later and
expecting abuse, the kid said "thank you for what you did, I was a right
arsehole and needed that to sort me out". One kid pulled out of the pot.
All ended up well.

In the USA he would have had a gun and may have shot the old lady and maybe
someone may have shot him - all for a handbag with probably little in it.
Guns are bad and should be out of society. They serve no positive purpose at
all. There are better ways of sorting out the bad in a society.