ramalamading

So murder in Australia is down 20% since the high point in 2002. Meanwhile, here in America, murder is down 50% over the last 20 years. (See: http://extranosalley.com/?p=40867) Thus, we have: 1) one place where guns were confiscated and had a murder reduction of 20%. 2) And we have another place where there are more guns than ever, and a murder reduction of 50%. Liberal's conclusion: Yeah, it must be the guns that are responsible for murder!

In other words, the criminals haven't been prevented from getting the guns they want with which to commit crimes. They've just gotten more creative. In other words, the confiscation from the law-abiding hasn't stopped the black market which is used by criminals. Ditto. And you claim this as a sign of success of gun confiscation?

In the meantime, Coca-cola will kill pain from a toothache. I've been working out in the field before with a toothache, and taking a small sip of Coke and holding it over the bad tooth will numb the pain. Repeat as necessary.

That looks like the ticket. If I was Keith, I'd go browse the dental section of a pharmacy store and see what they've got.

And in addition to all of the above, you have to get a permit from the government to be on the mountain, and that's a healthy fee which pays for cleaning up the trash left behind, medical care for the injured, and rescue operations. Climbers pay about $65,000 for their attempts. You're getting off easy...

JB Weld from the auto parts store works great on car engines. What could go wrong? Let us know how it works out...

News: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/12/gun-buybacks-popular-but-ineffective/1829165/ Quote: "The rifles, pistols and shotguns always look impressive when they're displayed at news conferences celebrating the end of gun buyback campaigns. Spread across tables or piled high into overflowing stacks, all those weapons reinforce the notion that trading cash for guns works. It gets guns off the street, organizers say, and makes the city safer. The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither."

Here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22hr4269%5C%22%22%5D%7D&resultIndex=1 Quote: "It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon." 124 co-sponsors. Sure, no one is trying to take our guns... That's what Obama told us!

I don't know what that means... But I was thinking that water needs a wall, fence or railing along side it. Small children could teeter right over that open edge and drown the same way. It's downright dangerous.

Well, that problem goes back to, what, the early or mid 80's. 30 years ago. Most of the people that were around then, are now retired and no longer skydiving. It was too long ago for the new kids to remember it. For the new kids, here's the story... In manufacturing, the steel is heated to soften it in order to forge the hardware into shape, and then they're put through a 2nd heating process to harden it again. A batch of large rings in the 3-ring system somehow missed that re-hardening step in the process. They got installed on rigs. And then a few people had hard openings which stretched those rings out into an oval shape. Some of them enough so that there was no longer sufficient diameter for the middle ring to pass through. So you were left with a non-functional cut-away system. It affected many hundreds of rigs. I had to send mine in to have a "Rockwell hardness test" done on it, whereby they push a diamond tip probe against the steel under a certain amount of pressure, and then measure the depth of the indentation made by the diamond - just a tiny almost imperceptible dimple. That tells you how hard the steel is. Mine passed, but I always had to carry that little piece of paper around with the rig for its remaining service life, to prove to every rigger that worked on it that it was safe.

Ah, I see. Thanks for those details. I thought maybe he was someone who was killed while distracted walking, since that's the subject of this thread, and someone mentioned "sensitivity" regarding him.

Yes it was. So says the person with no identifying information in their profile... Says the person who apparently is unaware of the PhillyKev incident. Don't know who that is or what happened to him/her. But if this is a sensitive subject here, I would just point out that I didn't start the topic. I just responded to what was already in progress...

I wonder if the hoverboard survived...

Yes it was. So says the person with no identifying information in their profile...

Here's another: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5b1_1451619783

Or a rubber door stop and a stiff coat hanger. You pry the top edge of the door away from the frame with your fingers and jam the door stop in there to create a tiny little gap. Slip the wire in through the gap and tap on the electric door-unlock button. I have freed dogs and children with this method. I just bought my first car with keyless ignition. It's weird to me. Touching the door handle unlocks the car. You have to be careful not to touch it as you're walking away, in order for it to remain locked. And I can click it twice to have the car start remotely, for warm-up on cold days. That's neat. But I worry about locking it inside the car. Supposedly it's a proximity thing, so if it's inside, then it's close enough that the car will refuse to lock. However, I've heard stories of people leaving it inside the rear tailgate, and the car locking, because that's just outside the proximity zone in the front seat. So I like to hide a spare key somewhere for entry when locked out, and that's saved me a number of times. However, with this proximity key, I'm not sure I can do that, because the mere fact that it's hidden on the car, makes it close enough to avoid locking the car. Ack! So, can I wrap it in foil or something to defeat the radio signal, so that it won't interfere with normal operation, while remaining hidden? Too damned complicated for me...

News: "Female WWII pilots barred from Arlington National Cemetery" "The ashes of World War II veteran Elaine Harmon are sitting in a closet in her daughter's home, where they will remain until they can go to what her family says is her rightful resting place: Arlington National Cemetery..." Link: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f299805c3ff04bb28761a62f74006fb3/female-wwii-pilots-barred-arlington-national-cemetery My opinion: The media will try and turn this into a sexism thing. It's not. Space at Arlington is limited, and should be reserved for those who deserve it most - actual in-theater combat veterans. If you make exception for women who ferried planes around the country, then what other exceptions will you have to make? What about those quarter-million merchant seaman who ferried supplies across oceans, risking enemy torpedo attacks? What about the servicemen who loaded boats in ports? Men who served stateside? There's not room for all of them. You have to draw the line somewhere. Given that space is limited, you make the requirements narrow. Yeah, the WASPS were great, and performed a valuable service. So did many others. But they did not face the enemy. They deserve a nice burial in a veteran's cemetery if that's what they want, but not in Arlington...

Also unable to explain why?

I'm not taking it seriously. You just keep saying you don't like her, and I'm trying to understand WHY. You won't answer that question to explain your dislike. Why are you afraid to tell us that?

Okay then, you just "don't like her". References to previous Taylor Swift comments: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4687173#4687173 http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4687145#4687145 Buy why? That's what I'm trying to get to. You think she's ugly. Okay, but that's a lousy reason to not like someone. Do you only like girls that are pretty and men that are handsome? You think she's ugly, and someone once said you looked like her. So in effect, that person was calling *you* ugly. Is that it? Most everyone considers Taylor Swift attractive, so the person was probably paying you a compliment by comparing you to her. And you just took it wrong because your perception of Taylor's beauty is different from most others. But that's still not a good reason to dislike Taylor Swift. Even if the comparison *was* meant to call you ugly, that would only be reason to hate the person who was making the "ugly" comparison. Not Taylor. So what is it about Taylor Swift that you consider "ugly"? I can't find it. She's physically attractive, and has talent and intelligence. She's conducting her life in an honorable manner, without being a tramp, doing drugs, or other things that many pop icons fall into and do for attention. Where's the "ugly" in that?

Well, she's beautiful, so that's a compliment. I don't understand how that turns into "hate"...

Why do you not like her?

If they have the votes to cut the funding for it, then I don't understand why they don't just use the same votes to shut down the law behind it.

Make your replica certificate, and leave off the number. You know you did it, so you can't be accused of creating a false document. The only question is, what's your serial number? And if you leave that off, you are true to honesty.