SansFin

I have found another box. I was looking in all places again. There is a drawer in the cabinet he built for his table saw which is a bin where the sawdust collects. I had looked there before but it did not register with me that I had helped him empty it recently and so it should not be so full. I dug into it and found a box with a new multi-speed Dremel and several accessories for my wood-carving. I have now only one key. I believe I will have to try to think as if I have a twisted, devious and mischievous mind such as his before I will locate what it unlocks.

> {quote:title=kingrat wrote:}{quote} > Capuchin is setting a standard which the rest of us mortal guys can't live up to. It is his way of atoning for grievous sins. He was recently away. There are functions related to work which do not happen often but it is very important for him to attend when they are held. He sent to me a message the day before he was to return. He said only that there were problems and that his return would be delayed. I believed it to be odd because those functions are very structured because they involve people from several companies and agencies and so they must adhere strictly to a standard schedule. I had to wait three days more for his return. I received a message from a hospital a few hours before I went to the airport to pick him up. They gave me instructions on his post-operative care at home! He had not gone to a function for his work. He had gone to have his aortic valve replaced again. He said he did not tell me because it would have caused me worry. I could not properly express my emotions concerning his deception because such surgery leaves him very weak for a long while after and he knows I can not attack a person who can not defend themself. I am sure he was relying on that when he was planning his ruse. He believes that if he is exceptionally attentive and caring now that it will make me forget what a horrid thing he did.

> {quote:title=Bildwasser wrote:}{quote} > The problem with the slippery slope argument is that it takes things for granted that are not sure to happen. They are not sure to happen but they are more likely to happen if one is not very careful. > Cigs were, after a long time, found to be hazardous > Soft drinks are similar to cigs It is possible to make a strong case for any single thing in the world that it is dangerous. The Dihydrogen Monoxide campaign was proof of that by convincing some influential people that action needs to be taken. The art of using skewed statistics and junk science has matured rapidly in the world in the last few decades. I have heard that coffee is now being prepared as the next major target. > The idea that the U.S. in 2012 is somehow akin to the Soviet Union is rather far-fetched and just doesn't pass the common sense test. I did not mean to suggest they were akin. The erosion of freedoms has been experienced in all governments since the Ancient Greeks. I was holding up the Soviet as an example because they gained so much control so very fast by that method. My statements were as if I was comparing a toddler to a cheetah because they exhibit bursts of speed but tire quickly. I would not mean to suggest that a two-year-old could rip the throat out of a gazelle. I will say that it is obvious that there is far less freedom here now than when the country was founded. A person could once build any home they wished in any manner they wished on their own land and no one would question it. I helped a friend of a friend build a small shed to hold some hay and to give her horse shelter in storms. The building permit, environmental approval, zoning clearance and all other required paperwork took eleven weeks and cost exactly $18.07 less than all of the building materials we used to build the shed in one day. One of the first things I did when I came to this country was to open a bank account. My apartment was not yet ready and so the only definite address I could supply was the post office box of a friend. I was notified by the bank last year that I had to provide a physical street address and identification bearing a photograph confirming that address or the account would be closed because of new Federal banking regulations. I hope that none see any of my statements as complaints against the United States. I grew up under the Soviet. I did all I could as a citizen to separate my country from it. The levels of freedom instantly rose to incredibly high levels compared to what we had. I know surely that any person in the United States would find it still horribly oppressive in many ways. I love very much the freedoms here and that may be why I am overly-protective of them and wish to preserve them against attempts to change things which could lead to oppressive regulations and more control by the government.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > > I've had this in my head for the last 3 or so years, will something happen December 21st? Call me whatever you want. > In that case, I'm gonna call you 'sweetie'. Is that a reference to Dr. River Song in Doctor Who ?

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > There have been dozens, hundreds, thousands of predictions of the end of the world. Not one of them has come true. I wonder if that sentiment was commonly held among the T. Rex

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > Lenin and the Communists did not promise freedom, I thank you for that information. I did not know previously what form of revisionist history was considered socially acceptable here now.

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote} > But FYI is a temple in India where rats are worshipped: I may have known of that at one time. It is quite possible that my subconscious remembered it when I was searching for an example of human behavior which many may think is extreme. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." - Hamlet - Shakespeare

> {quote:title=Swithin wrote:}{quote} > But there is an illogical way of arguing these days that says, if a proposed solution to a problem doesn't fix the problem 100%, don't do it. There is an analogy which I feel is appropriate. It is sad to say that the proper version of it is copyrighted so I must paraphrase the concept. I hope you will forgive my poor writing: You live in an old house. There are many rats. You begin action by throwing things at the rats. They do not go away. You buy a pellet pistol with which to shoot the rats. It annoys them but they do not go away. You buy a small pistol to shoot the rats. That deals with the rats you can hit but you miss some. You buy a larger pistol. The ones you miss come back. You equip your pistol with a laser so you are more accurate. You kill more rats. They have large families so there are always more to replace the dead. You decide you need a cannon. You see that the rats have made holes to come into your rooms. You put heavy objects in front of the holes to keep them out. The rats make new holes. You put heavier objects in front of the new holes because the things you used to cover the old holes did not prevent new ones. The rats make new holes. You decide to buy a cement mixer so that you can cast immovable blocks to cover the old holes in hopes that it will prevent new holes. It is so very obvious to you that the cause of your woes is rats that you dismiss suggestions that the rats merely indicate greater problems. You believe that any person is a heretic if they suggest that you suspend your war with the rats and devote your time, energy and resources to repairing the house so that rats will not have places of easy entry and easy access to food and good places to build nests and easy passage through rotting walls. I believe that is the state of the gun control debate now. There are people who wish to use bigger guns against the problem by creating more encompassing laws. They wish to block access by creating superior restrictions. There are people who believe that the only permanent solution is to reduce the problem by concentrating on education and instilling self-responsibility and reviving the concept of moral discipline so as to mend what has degraded over many years. They see more far-reaching laws and more severe restrictions as further damaging that which needs to be repaired. I believe that such large debates have more than two sides which adds to the complexity of the problem. . I am sure there are people also who believe that rats are God's creatures and you are unenlightened if you do not gladly and with joy share your home with them.

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote} > A lot of MY point, sansFin, WAS that a lot of people who own handguns have no business owning them. I am sorry to say that I do not understand the concept of making a 'point' of such an obvious thing. There are people who have driven more than a million miles and have not had a single motor vehicle accident. There was a person who backed her new car into another car at the dealership and then scraped fenders with her insurance agent's car when she went to his office and then backed into a police car when an officer stopped to investigate the accident. I believe the common phrase in currency is: "you can't fix stupid". > I noticed that either by design, or oversight, you chose NOT to address the notion that many of the criminally minded obtain their handguns through burglaries. I did address it because it is a tangent. Many of the prescription drugs which are available illegally were stolen from patients. Are we to control that by not allowing people to have medicine in their home? Many years ago there were men who would hit a policeman on foot with their car. One of them would take the policeman's weapon when he was down and they would drive away. I believe they acquired nearly fifty pistols in that way in a year. Criminals who want weapons but are kept from purchasing them illegally will find a way to fill their need. People are inventive and people who do not have regular employment have more time to think of things to do. > Gun laws need to be seriously reviewed. I believe that the ones in place now need to be enforced. I have read of a case near here in recent times wherein a person was arrested for selling illegal drugs. He was sent to prison for ten years and it is likely he will be out in five years. He was previously a felon and he had an illegal weapon in his possession when he was arrested. The prosecutor choose to use that as a bargaining point to make the man plead Nolo Contendere to the drug charges. I believe the prosecutor should have enforced the laws as they are written. The charges which could have been brought totaled many more than a hundred years. A competent prosecutor and a fair judge should have been able to put the felon in prison for at least thirty years. Such action would have removed a serious criminal from society for much longer and it would have made at least a few other criminals consider whether they need to take such a risk. > This "gun control" issue seems to have no easy or clear cut resolution. "If it was easy, anyone could do it."

> {quote:title=helenbaby wrote:}{quote} > The Mayans don't know anymore than the many nutty preachers & shaman that have predicted the "end of the world" during my six decades on this planet. I wouldn't worry if I were you. I believe many people overlook a wonderful reason for saying that the world will not end: you can say: "I told you so" if it does not end but no one will be around to say it to you if their prediction comes true and the world does end. I believe also that the entire situation has been greatly misunderstood. It is the end of the Mayan calendar. Our calendar is ending ten days later. I wish all to remember how they felt the morning after a good New Year's Eve party. I wish all to imagine how much grander that party would have been if it had been in celebration of a span of 144,000 years rather than a mere 365 days. The Mayans may have known that no human could live through such a hangover.

> {quote:title=slaytonf wrote:}{quote} > I have heard much about the Proverbial Slippery Slope, and am curious to see one. I must admit, though I have looked diligently, I have yet to see one, unless it be the one descending into indiscriminate slaughter. Capuchin tells of being in the woods after a heavy rain. Deer tracks were deep in the soft ground. He followed them until they began down a hill where they were soon wiped out by a deer's-rear-end wide smear in the mud leading to the bottom of the hill. He has said it is the funniest thing he has never seen. Cigarettes were so very popular that they were promoted by the government. Then a select few began to vilify them. They were soon subject to separate tax. Then they were regulated. It is now that it is illegal in some areas to smoke in your own home. Soft drinks are very popular. A select few have begun to vilify them. They are now subject to separate tax in some areas. They are being regulated in some areas. It is inevitable that they will eventually be outlawed. I will suggest that if you are truly interested in seeing such progressions that you study regulations instituted by the Soviet in the 1920s and 1930s. Each and every measure was done in the spirit of the greatest good for the greatest number. Any inconvenience, hardship or abridgment of freedom experienced by some individuals was dismissed as insignificant in light of the supposed benefits. Any who opposed new restrictions were labeled unenlightened, rabble-rousing and dangerous. I am not speaking of the great confrontations or sweeping reforms. There was a very much more important slow erosion of rights and freedoms which took the people from freedom from the Tsar by revolution to the tyranny of the Soviet one small step at a time.

It is my understanding that: *If I Were King* (1938) was aired by TCM in the dim and distant past. I am waiting with bated breath for it to be scheduled and the minnow in my mouth is becoming quite icky.. Ronald Colman, Basil Rathbone, Frances Dee and Sidney Toler. Written by Preston Sturges and directed by Frank Lloyd.

> {quote:title=misswonderly wrote:}{quote} > I want to say that I was touched by your personal story I thank you for your kind words. > I do think that any kind of gun that can fire off many bullets in a very short period of time, "assault" weapons, weapons and guns that are meant only for military use, should not be available to the ordinary civilian. This wouldn't be so much a "ban" as the simple employment of common sense. I am sorry to say that I see in this the proverbial slippery slope. It is within my lifetime that any United States citizen could own any weapon which they could afford. It was a thing we admired and it was one of the things which made the United States sound as if it was a wonderful place to live. Ownership of fully automatic weapons here now carries great restrictions and places a great burden on a prospective owner to show they are capable of many aspects of ownership and justify their intentions. I believe that is all perfectly reasonable. Ownership of semi-automatic weapons with large clips is now being questioned. Many believe this is perfectly reasonable. Some semi-automatic weapons have clips which hold only a few bullets but which can be changed quite quickly. They will surely be the weapons of choice for disturbed people who are not able to acquire assault rifles. It will seem reasonable in the wake of tragedy to ban semi-automatic weapons with clips. Semi-automatic weapons which must be reloaded manually were a standard military weapon for many years and it takes little practice to reload them quickly. It is not at all difficult to make stripper clips which reduce reloading time significantly. Some disturbed people will surely use them. It will seem reasonable in the wake of tragedy to ban all semi-automatic weapons. A pump shotgun with an extension which can be made with ease at home can be fired nine times in less than fifteen seconds. Many disturbed people will find the experience particularly exhilarating because the physical action stimulates adrenalin flow. It will seem reasonable to ban all weapons which are not single-shot and the reasoning that a good hunter never needs more than a single shot to bring down their prey will reinforce the arguments. It is the nature of single-shot weapons that they are much smaller and lighter than multi-shot weapons. A disturbed person could carry with ease twenty or more single-shot pistols in loops on a bandoleer. It will seem reasonable to ban all weapons which weigh less than twenty pounds in order to prevent such a thing from happening. I could go on until the result is that a young boy wishing to hunt rats will have to haul a fifty pound rifle which is nine feet long and he will have to stop between shots to mix the saltpeter, charcoal and sulfur so he can reload and fire another .177 caliber shot. Each step is reasonable. Where do you draw the line? It is perhaps more important to ask how you will insure that the line you drew will remain there. It is the very nature of society that abridgments of freedom creep constantly forward and are never reversed until there is a revolution.. > there is no reason for a non-military person to use such a weapon, much less have it in their possession. I am sorry to say that I must contradict you. One obvious example is that wild boars are a menace in many places. Hunting them to reduce the spread of disease, property damage and risk to human life is a public service. I read shortly after I arrived here that a hunter had been maimed when he and a friend went hunting them with standard hunting rifles and they were attacked by a pack. Or is it 'herd'? Rapid fire and a great amount number of rounds is very important in such situations. Another obvious example is that it is well known that going into bear country involves risk. Hikers and campers can reduce the risks significantly by learning proper techniques. They can never eliminate all the risk because bears will at time go rogue and attack with no provocation. Carrying a rifle so large that it is capable of stopping a large bear with one shot is cumbersome, expensive and requires training. A semi-automatic with a large clip is lighter, shorter and the number of rounds available compensates for lack of marksmanship and the normal high levels of fear in such situations. There are many other types of activities where what is termed: 'assault rifles' are the best possible choice and perfectly reasonable

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > it takes a lot more expertise to do explosives than to use assault weapons. I believe those who ridiculed Вячеслав Молотов would disagree with you.

> {quote:title=Sepiatone wrote:}{quote} > The bulk of home invasions occur when nobody's home. The term: "home invasion" is defined as: Burglary of a dwelling while the residents are at home http://www.thefreedictionary.com/home+invasion burglary of a dwelling while the residents are at home [wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn] an act or instance of entering an occupied residence with the intent to commit a burglary or other crime http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/home+invasion?s=t > Someone breaks in while I'm asleep. ... A firearm in the home deters crime. Per a CDC study for one year: "... 497,646 (95% CI = 266,060-729,231) incidents occurred in which the intruder was seen and reportedly scared away by the firearm." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354 Per Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms By James D. Wright and Peter D. Rossi. Aldine De Gruyter, 1994: "A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons dispersed across the U.S. found: 34% had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim. 40% had decided not to commit a crime because they "knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun"" > WHILE I'm trying to LOAD my gun in the DARK! It is my opinion and clearly only my opinion that any person who can not load their weapon in the dark in less than ten seconds is an idiot who never learned to handle their weapon properly and should not own a firearm or even any pointy objects.

To ValentineXavier: Your proposal seems a well-reasoned approach which does not affect most honest and decent people. I take major exception to the part of your proposal that applies blanket restrictions to certain types of weapons. I was given a rifle when I was fourteen years of age because I demonstrated a talent for marksmanship. It changed my life. I was a disappointment to my relatives because I did many simple things poorly and I was an average student. It was amazing to find a thing that I did well and it was more amazing that I was much better than most people. That brought me confidence. My grades rose dramatically that year and remained so high that I was able to go to university. I was able to hunt to keep food on our table one winter when my father's situation was very poor. There were times that year that she was my only friend in the world. I was able to travel to places I could not have gone if it were not for matches and demonstrations of which I was a part. She brought me admiration from family and recognition from important people. I expended great effort to bring my rifle here. I shoot rarely because the cost of the proper ammunition is very high and it is likely I will never shoot as I once did because of a recent accident. Neither of those changes the bond I have with her. The problem with your proposal is that I would have to surrender her because of the classification as a military rifle and new versions are still used by many armies. It is not an assault rifle. I use a magazine which holds six rounds but I have also the magazine for ten rounds. There is no possible 'fair market value' for what I hold to be a dear friend who has been so very important in my life.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > You have quite the monstrous imagination, though. I was merely thinking of the shooting in Aurora, Colorado where the shooter had rigged ten gallons of gasoline to explode if his apartment was breached and the two at Columbine, Colorado who set bombs made with propane tanks inside the school with the intention of shooting people fleeing the explosion.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > The citizen going berserk all at once and killing as many people as he can at that time, which is what is being discussed now, is greatly aided in his body count by assault weapons, designed for exactly that purpose. I have seen statistics concerning the use of handgun-related suicide. The rate is lower in areas where handguns are not available easily. There is not a lower suicide rate in those areas. People find other methods. I shudder to think of the consequences of a person who wishes to take delusional revenge on a school when the only instruments available to him are a dozen cans of gasoline and a road flare.

> {quote:title=Dargo2 wrote:}{quote} > both of your funny little analogies were SO far off the mark in order to make your point as to be totally worthless to the conversation at hand I meant to point out how ridiculous it is to turn hype into action. What happened is very sad and very tragic. I believe that to use it as a springboard to push through emotional legislation which has no basis in reality of preventing future tragedies is either short-sighted or self-serving. I choose to present this opinion by humorous interjection rather than boring tirade. It is obvious that I did failed.

This is the eve of Saint Nicholas Day. I hope you have all been very good this year! Please be sure to leave out your best shoes to be filled with presents. I ask please also that you leave some hay and an apple for his reindeer.

> {quote:title=hamradio wrote:}{quote} > Should there be a ban on sharp objects? When will people become involved in banning dihydrogen monoxide? It has caused many deaths and has been the instrument in many murders. It is used also in torture. . For more information: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote} > What doesn't make sense to me, is how would that be common enough knowledge in the US for it to become a common expression? I believe it is the fault of the British. They scoffed at the ways of the people of India when they were occupying it. The British upper class did not believe in pets per se. They kept dogs for hunting and allowed cats because they were mousers. They held up to ridicule the keeping of white elephants as pets. This may have led to the practice of calling jumble sales as white elephant sales because they were for things you did not truly need. The sentiment may have come to United States through movies and servicemen during wars.

> {quote:title=darkblue wrote:}{quote} > It's probable that, had people been permitted to own as many assault weapons as are now owned in the U.S., you'd have many more such stories to remember. I did not know any person who was killed by an assault rifle outside of combat. I know there were incidents of illegal assault rifles being used in crimes and for murders but they did not touch my friends or me. There was this: My cousin was stabbed in her home and nearly died. I helped her obtain firearms for protection. A long time later she heard a woman calling for help. She picked up the weapon nearest to her and she stepped out into the hallway. The man assaulting the woman had a pistol. My cousin had a Kalashnikov. He dropped his pistol and ran. The number of rapes and burglaries in her building dropped significantly for many years after that. I believe that bans never help. I believe they are always superficial reactions by people who do not understand underlying causes. One need only look at historical attempts to ban Bibles, alcohol, marijuana and many other things to see that bans simply do not work.

> {quote:title=ValentineXavier wrote:}{quote}from Merriam-Webster: > I never understood why something as rare as a white elephant would be of little or no value. Elephants were of great value because of the work they could do. A white elephant was held in such high esteem it was not trained to work. It would by that have no intrinsic value and would have to be owned by a person who could afford to keep it as a pet. Such people are few and far between.

I will present some information now that this thread is no longer about sympathy or condolences: These were the laws where and when I was growing up: Only law enforcement, soldiers and government officers could carry firearms at most times. Citizens could own rifles and shotguns. The police kept them. Citizens had to have a pass stating exact dates and places where they were to be transported and used before the police would release the weapon to its owner. Security guards could carry handguns which belonged to their service when on duty. The managers kept strict control over them because they could be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with such a handgun. These laws were enforced to the extent that it was not uncommon for a person caught illegally with a weapon to be tried, convicted and shipped to prison the same day as their arrest. My experience under these laws was: The teacher I was to have the next year, three students who were visiting her and a friend of hers were killed in her home by her husband using a gun he had made. A very good friend of mine who was very pretty had her face scarred by flying glass when a person shot the windows in our school using a Thompson Sub-Machine Gun. Two of the six friends of mine who died when I was growing up were killed by firearms. I had to work in an emergency room as part of my schooling. I believe it was a way of culling those who could not tolerate the sights and sounds of such work. It was common to have one shooting victim each day. My father's employment exposed him to people of all types and he was expected often to procure things that were not strictly legal. It was common for him to be offered illegal pistols. It was not rare for him to be offered assault rifles or machine guns. I was given a rifle when I was fourteen years of age. It was kept at the practice range. I had to show my identification and sign a book each time I went. The policeman there would give me my pass for the day and a set of ammunition. It happened at times that they would check my targets to compare the number of holes with the number of rounds I had been given. I was assigned a pistol when I was sixteen years of age. It could not be mine but I was the only one to use it. I could not have both the rifle and the pistol on the same day. There were new policemen there one day because the old ones had been sent to jail or disappeared because nearly half of all of the handguns and many of the rifles kept there were stolen by them and sold to criminals. I am happy to say that my weapons were not stolen.