Double Standard

“Court documents, written by FBI agents who aided the investigation, revealed that the hackers tricked technical support staff into giving them access to the sensitive email accounts.
 
The hackers also posed as technicians from ISPs and other service companies to get passwords re-set so they could take over accounts and get at federal computer systems. All the attacks took place in early 2016.”
 
See Arrests over hacks of CIA and FBI staff
One of the frustrations I have over the US political scene is that Rs use the bully pulpit far and wide to accuse Hillary with using an “illegal” server and broadcasting classified documents when she was using proper advice from techies and experienced civil servants to institute her e-mail regime. She might have inadvertently transmitted a few classified (most retroactively classified) documents out of tens of thousands of e-mails, no consistent practice of carelessness. Meanwhile, folks who tow the line and used official channels get hacked in bulk and those Rs don’t even seem to notice. Perhaps USA would be more secure if every official used an individual server and domain rather than being part of a large target for hackers. Perhaps officials should take hammers to old/discarded equipment to prevent important information falling into the wrong hands.

Come on, guys! Hillary may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer but she did better than many thousands of others who didn’t even try.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in politics, technology and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

42 Responses to Double Standard

  1. oiaohm says:

    Please go and read that Victoria list of prohibited weapons.
    http://www.police.vic.gov.au/retrievemedia.asp?media_id=70098
    Extendable baton is included.
    http://www.moderncombatives.com.au/specialised.html
    Guess what this Melbourne Victoria is training licensed security personal to use. That is right Extendable baton.

    So this is where claiming a weapon is illegal in Australia is so wrong. The word prohibited is used a lot. Anything prohibited can be allowed by an issued permit or license. Prohibited weapon becomes a illegal weapon when you have it and don’t have a permit or license for it. Mixing up prohibited with illegal means you end up totally not understanding what the real Australian restrictions are.

    Yes as funny as it sounds you can drive a unroadworthy car without a drivers license on an Australian road legally if a police officer issues you with a permit to-do so. Because its only prohibited to have a unroadworthy car on the road and to drive without a drivers license. If something is absolutely illegal in Australia the word illegal is use to describe it in law and police offices cannot issue permits overriding it.

    This is also common english usage difference between the USA and Australia. Since USA prohibited normally means the Australian of illegal what is in fact a completely different meaning.

    There is not a single item in that Victoria list of prohibited weapons that you cannot get a permit to have in a public place. Some items will require more explanation to police than others to get permit. Pepper spray and Baton are fairly straight forwards. I have help a person do up the paperwork for person carrying mace, danger, sword and crossbow because the person for a Medieval Fair event advertisement wanted to be in full equipment dress and it was very good advertisement for the event. Yes getting the right to carry multi prohibited weapons does mean give a really good explanation why. So yes the prohibited restriction can be bypassed for all kinds of reasons from self-defence to defence of others to advertisement to weapon relocation….. Australian shades of grey.

  2. oiaohm says:

    A legal AK-47 are in fact manufactured in Australia. Interesting part is to movie makers armourers, legal hunters and security they sell for less than 600AUD. Interesting enough the legal AK-47 made in Australia is very rarely stolen and found quickly so due to the altered design requirements resulting in many parts in fact echo a radio signal back. So Legal Australian made parts of AK-47 are totally not wanted by criminals because they are too track-able.

    Since when does USA “trump” Australian law?
    It is very interesting that most of the illegal supply of weapons to Australia comes from the USA due to USA very lax laws.

    Some of the big armourers and the like in there person collections over 20 000 weapons of all types. The largest private is has enough weapons to arm one in 10 of the Australian population of course mostly filled with Australian made weapons that by design are track-able.

    Not true at all. One of my neighbors has an extensive collection of class 3 weapons.
    LOL you don’t get it. Australian licensed armourer is allowed to have a fully functional battle tank. USA cit is required to disable the weapons systems to own a tank. Some of the reason why particular movies end up getting footage done in Australia.
    Eh? You just contradicted yourself.
    No I did not contradict self you have no clue what Australian is in fact allowed to own with licensing and permits compared to what USA citizen max is. Yes its legal for a Australian armourer to have enough weapons to equip a private army force with tanks and everything and that is kinda useful at times for movie production. But everything has to be effectively lojacked or equal making if stolen rapidly traceable.

    They own automatic weapons? Oh? and you know this how?
    Really you have not been paying attention because many moves and shows shot in Australia and displayed in the USA you will see automatic weapons used that have come out of armourers legal collections.

    Please note the price of AK-47 on the street in 1997 was only 120% price compared to legal. Currently is 3300% of legal. So has been fairly much going up in price every year. There has to come a point where criminals can no longer afford the weapons.

    Issue here is Melbourne is fairly much Australian underworld crime centre was before 1996 and fairly much still is.
    http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2015/11/10/australias-secret-gun-problem-exposed/
    There is a lot more going on than it first seams. The crack down on possession of ammo is seeing illegal weapons be found more as well. Dogs can be trained to sniff out ammo more effectively than guns.

    Please do take note price of a item is supply vs demand. Recent years police enforcements have seen supply of arms in Australia be way short of demand. We are also seeing more criminal disputes to have guns and ammo due to increasing price. Sometimes things have to get worse to get better.

    Also here is something important in Melbourne the cases where one party or another has ended up head shot has more often been attempted fighting back with a gun on its own. Yes the one who attempted to draw a gun in self defence end up dead before they could line up the shot.
    http://www.moderncombatives.com.au/specialised.html
    Melbourne has many places that train in tactical flash-light usage.

    “Young, dumb and armed” as description of the young criminals with firearms. Most young criminals get guns to defend self because this is the dumb USA idea. When a Melbourne security guard beats the living heck out them with a touch with baton and normally breaking an arm to disarm them they are kinda surprised. Its why they train with batons and touches. Due to a security guard wearing a uniform they are normally engaged at longer than 30 feet so making pepper spray not effective.

    When I have pepper spray I have permit no matter if the state allows with or without. Sorry its not illegal for me to carry that. If I could not get a permit to carry for some reason I would just go back to the tactical torch methods what are effective.

    There is a huge self-defence market in the USA mostly selling stuff that by the numbers is not effective and just creates increased death rates around the world. I really wish Australia could land wrongful death charges in USA arms suppliers in the same way modchip makers in Australia were punished for letting chips go to the USA. Maybe then USA would start getting serous about gun control at least for what they are exporting.

  3. dougman says:

    Ham_dong, better get that illegal pepper spray out. Heck, forego the baby nuke, just startup selling AK-47’s.

    “In June, word spread that an AK-47 was available for $20,000.”

    http://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2016/gun-city/day1.html

  4. dougman says:

    “Yes if you have Weapons Manufacturers License and want to make something in the mother of bombs or father of bombs class and had the money to-do it yes it would be legal.”

    Go build a baby bombs class, that way when someone pisses you off you can tell them to stuff it up with authority!

    “So the reason why an Australian firearm collector license holder cannot have a nuclear weapon is not Australian law but USA law forbid sales nukes to individuals.”

    Since when does USA “trump” Australian law?

    “The reality is as an Australian if I do all the required licensing and permits I am allowed to own more weapon types than a USA person is as an individual. ”

    Not true at all. One of my neighbors has an extensive collection of class 3 weapons.

    “USA citizen can have more weapon types without licensing and explaining reason but you don’t have the right to in fact have every type of weapon an Australian can have by doing the required paperwork.”

    Eh? You just contradicted yourself.

    “This is also where USA people get confuse. Like automatic weapons banned in Australia yet you see security guards with glocks and automatic rifles at times. ”

    I am not confused, although I already know you are.

    “Interesting enough firearm manufacturers and official armourers and collectors are in fact still allowed to still own them.”

    They own automatic weapons? Oh? and you know this how?

  5. dougman wrote, “How would YOU go about obtaining a nuclear weapon?
     
    Where would you obtain the materials?”

    The raw material that’s critical (pun not intended) is Uranium and not just Uranium but one of its isotopes. You can find uranium in just about any rock. Just sort the atoms to find the good ones. I’ve been in places where the soil was orange with uranium and nothing prevented anyone from digging up a few tons of it and ferrying it away to a barn somewhere. The usual method of sorting the atoms is to create UF6 and running it through a series of gas centrifuges. This tends to separate the men from the boys as the process takes a lot of space/power/time/money. One can do it electromagnetically but that’s even less efficient in terms of product/energy. The Manhattan project, using crude 1940s prototypes, did it all in a few years, but with lots of $billions and man-years.

    Most people have better things to do with their time/money. Making nukes is advantageous only for nut-cases who think bombing folks back into the Stone Age makes sense and want to do it for less money or faster. Stealing nukes may be far easier for murdering bastards. Stealing radioactive material may be even easier because it’s usually stored at nuclear reactors. However, it’s so “hot” that it’s fairly easy to track. There’s no telling what murdering bastards would choose. The current batch were well-funded until folks began bombing them regularly. They probably don’t have space/time/resources for the job of making and for their purposes conventional explosives and chemicals and bullets and knives tend to get the news coverage they seek. The current batch of murdering bastards may intend to take over the world but their strategy is to do it by inspiration, not bigger bombs. Even if they did get bigger bombs, they would not be able to kill everyone and while they may be able to deal with a few thousand Iraqis they are impotent against millions of troops globally. The world just needs enough motivation to deal with them. We are there now.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Collectors Licence in the Australian system in theory would allow a person to have a private nuke bomb.
    Note the word theory in there. Doing it is another problem based on who you would have to buy the bomb from.

    Weapon Manufacturers Licence does not allow you to make a Nuke weapon in Australia. Yes if you have Weapons Manufacturers License and want to make something in the mother of bombs or father of bombs class and had the money to-do it yes it would be legal.

    Collectors licenses are not allowed to make weapons.
    How would YOU go about obtaining a nuclear weapon?
    This is why its theory you would have to successfully find some country somewhere willing to sell the collector the nuke weapon and then meet all the importing and security requirements. Fairly much that restricts you to buying from the USA. So unless there is some regulation change in the USA its basically impossible.

    So the reason why an Australian firearm collector license holder cannot have a nuclear weapon is not Australian law but USA law forbid sales nukes to individuals.

    The reality is as an Australian if I do all the required licensing and permits I am allowed to own more weapon types than a USA person is as an individual. USA laws in fact are the limiting factor blocking the largest weapons being nukes and the like.

    This is where Australians get really confused of the USA idea of the right to bear arms. USA citizen can have more weapon types without licensing and explaining reason but you don’t have the right to in fact have every type of weapon an Australian can have by doing the required paperwork.

    This is also where USA people get confuse. Like automatic weapons banned in Australia yet you see security guards with glocks and automatic rifles at times. Why they were able to submit a document explain why they validly require the weapons so got a permit to legally use automatic rifles. Then the next question where did the automatic rifles come from. Interesting enough firearm manufacturers and official armourers and collectors are in fact still allowed to still own them.

    Australian laws around weapons are shades of grey not black and while. If it a weapon a percent of the Australia population is allowed to own it no matter what it is. The more dangerous the weapon the more regulations you have to deal with and the more documentation you have to present to prove that a different weapon requiring less regulation could not be used if you wish to use it. So yes wanting to use a hand gun for self-defence means proving that other options allowed without a license will not be effective enough to ensure your safety.

    We are not use to the knee jerk reaction that we see in the Americas when needing self defence going jump for a firearm as this does not work here in Australia. We have to document why we need weapons this does make you think more about what protection the weapon is really granting you. So making sure you in fact put together a set of weapons that will work to protect your safety and whatever you happen to be protecting. The result is we don’t see firearms as self-defence but as force multipliers and to defend others as this is what is required to put on paperwork to get rights to use them.

  7. dougman says:

    HAM_DONG, the nuclear physicist! I suspect that North Korea would be interested in your services.

    “Collectors Licence in the Australian system in theory would allow a person to have a private nuke bomb.”

    How would YOU go about obtaining a nuclear weapon?

    Where would you obtain the materials?

    Would you prefer a dirty nuke, backpack, fission or fusion type of weapon?

    In what manner would you go about enriching the radio-logical materials?

    With your limited understanding, I do believe a cold-fusion device would be the appropriate choice. Firstly, you need some heavy-water, wrapped in a beryllium casing to start.

  8. oiaohm says:

    What would you know about pepper-spray? As it is illegal to carry or possess pepper spray or mace in Australia. These items are classed as prohibited weapons!
    Wrong information as normal would have paid to read the wikipedia first.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pepper_spray#Australia
    Lawful excuse covers carrying pepper spray in number of Australian states as long as it not hidden for self defence. So on your belt is fine. In pocket no so much. In other states where its a prohibited weapon you can hold a security license or a firearms license or permit are allowed to possess it and carry it like any other firearm if trained in correct usage of weapon and how to apply medical after usage of weapon.
    http://www.kitbag.com.au/products/Pepper-Spray-50ml-.html
    Places selling pepper spray in Australia are required to include the contact local police clauses to make sure you have correct licenses or permits and carry style in place.

    So its not in fact a completely illegal weapon to have. You will get into trouble in Australia having pepper spray without any matching paperwork and required training authorising your usage.

    You have mixed up “unauthorized possession” meaning. In Australia authorised possession allows you to carry a lot of things. Also Australian usage of “prohibited weapons” is confusing. It most just means prohibited unless you have a permit/license saying otherwise so then it becomes authorised possession so not a prohibited weapon to you.

    The reality is there is no limit on what firearms and weapons a lawful citizen of Australia can have as long as they are willing to do all the required paper work and security requirements. Ammunition Collectors Licence in the Australian system in theory would allow a person to have a private nuke bomb. Of course setting up all the protections to meet the security requirements around nuke bomb would not be simple.

    http://www.police.vic.gov.au/retrievemedia.asp?media_id=70098
    This is the list of prohibited weapons from one of the strictest Australian states.
    About the only thing you can do is carry one of those loud and really annoying sirens that go off when you pull the pin because you can’t scream particularly loudly.
    Sorry big bad news those siren crap are 14 years jail without a license or permit as well in states where carrying pepper spray required a license or permit. Yes you have to do the same amount of paperwork to carry a really annoying sirens or pepper spray. If I am going to waste my time doing paperwork I will do it for pepper spray and gun. Not for a noise bit of junk that mostly get ignored. Also you are not going to-do paperwork to have pepper spray and have a second rate version.

    The best price/quality on pepper spray in Australia is you also buy it from the police/military supplier and pick it up from the police station. So Australia we don’t have as many different groups selling different designed pepper sprays that fail functionality testing. In fact there are a lot of pepper spray designs sold in the USA that are classed defective product due to trigger design so cannot be imported into Australia for even people with permits..

    What is legal for everyone without a firearm or security license or permits in every Australian state is a tactical flash-light. A good tactical flash-light can temporary blind a target out at 200 metres or 218 yards and makes a very good club. There were some interesting tests done when Australia was working in firearm laws. One was 100 meters split between person with tactical flash-light and a person with glock with stock(yes a weapon that can head shot at a 100 metres) over 2000 tests the result came out 90 percent chance of a person trained with tactical flash-light killing the person with gun only a 10 percent chance for person with gun to hit person once and less than 2 percent chance to kill the person with the tactical flash-light in 30 mins. Please note the person with tactical flash-light was forbidden from running so had to walk the 100 metres to close the gap.

    The reality using a gun extremely depends on your vision. Yes military also did trials of gun with tactical flash-light vs gun without tactical flash-light the result of that was quite expected the one without tactical flash-light would loss almost 100 percent of time and fairly quickly. The one without tactical flash-light only wins if their first shot is successful in most cases yet the person with tactical flash-light can afford to miss a few times. Main military reason for not using tactical flash-light is element of surprise. Self defence most cases its you who is surprised one.

    The other items that are legal are solid walking sticks and umbrellas. Please note solid walking stick does cover a 7 foot long combat staff as long as you have put rubber feet on each end. Sometimes Australian weapon law is what the particular with combat staffs as without rubber feet they are not a permitted weapon to carry in public.

    I do have something like the instructables “Multi-Function Walking Stick – Converts to a Chair” its quite a nice close combat weapon as well as being a walking stick and chair.

    Other than that, you can just rely on your ability to run long distances at a decent speed.
    So this is basically not true. You either depend on ability to run or ability to club their head in because they did you see you coming because of a tactical flash-light.

    Robert Pogson
    I’ve never used the stuff but there have been times I wished I had it, like getting harassed by territorial dogs while walking. It would be much more acceptable than shooting the damned things.
    This is a reason why rangers in all states of Australia are allowed to carry pepper spray normal bear spray class stuff. The issue here is the dogs following you might be waiting to inform the other dogs in pack when to spring ambush. Thing people forget dogs harass animals to drive them into ambushes and they do the same to humans at times. Hitting early with spray ends up less risk to the dogs and the humans.

  9. dougman says:

    Reality is, for 99.999 percent of the time, HAM-DONG’s posts are worthless dribble.

    What would you know about pepper-spray? As it is illegal to carry or possess pepper spray or mace in Australia. These items are classed as prohibited weapons!

    Unauthorized possession or use of pepper spray or mace is a serious offence. It can be prosecuted on indictment, which means you can face a jury trial in the district court. If you are charged on indictment, then the maximum penalty is up to 14 years in prison.

    So, we know in fact that you don’t know jack and stating otherwise just makes you a Wikipedia copy-paste fool.

    So in Australia, one cannot protect them-self with any firearm or pepper-spray. About the only thing you can do is carry one of those loud and really annoying sirens that go off when you pull the pin because you can’t scream particularly loudly. Other than that, you can just rely on your ability to run long distances at a decent speed.

  10. dougman wrote, “carrying pepper spray is dangerous and likely to get you killed, or at the very least you’d spray yourself int eh face by holding the device backwards.”

    I’ve never used the stuff but there have been times I wished I had it, like getting harassed by territorial dogs while walking. It would be much more acceptable than shooting the damned things. I think the best “bear spray” devices fit the hand so that it naturally points away but self-contamination is a possibility. Having water on hand is decent first aid but so’s getting away from the danger. I think shopping carefully, RTFM and practice could take care of such issues. In Canada, “Mace” is a prohibited device… but bear/dog spray is not. I should try taking along the bear spray next time I hike anywhere.

    One issue that affects users of firearms/sprays/sharp sticks for defence is that the worst possible case is an ambush where the element of surprise aids a bear’s attacking style. They tend to bowl one over and then rip you up. If they get into that process, even if you carry a firearm or spray, you are almost certainly badly injured even if you can reach it. Situational awareness and practice or simulation are the best defences. As a hunter, I practice some of that because it helps deal with deer in the bush fairly often but with bears, one is taking a risk being there if a bear is surprised/angry/hunting from ambush. Just dealing with bush is hard. Being ready for immediate threats any instant is another layer on top of that. The grizzly/polar bears are very dangerous but fortunately they are sparse/far away from most of us. The black bear does the damage in most places because they thrive on garbage and lose respect for people. Some people are unaware of bears because bears are often active at night when people are not out on the land. Where I was a boy, I was often on the land and saw only one bear in all my years there. Today, in the same area there are lots of bear signs because people have quit farming marginal land and commute to work, leaving the bears to do their thing, so it’s a much more dangerous place to pick berries/mushrooms/nuts or to hunt. Spray might be more convenient to carry than a rifle but I have access to rifles but would have to acquire spray.

  11. oiaohm says:

    Military/police train with/against OC spray and are not blinded. An angry/cornered bear charging will have all the motivation needed to finish an attack.
    Sorry to say it does depend on the OC spray. Good sprays does have a foam compound. Foam compound is purely targeted at blocking vision. In fact using foam practice spray for a OC spray with foam is almost as effective as using the one containing OC.

    So when choosing a spray for self defence the question is how blind will it make the target.

    The maximum range of which is 3-10 feet, I can hit you in the head with my 1911 at 50 yards. Careful, carrying pepper spray is dangerous and likely to get you killed, or at the very least you’d spray yourself int eh face by holding the device backwards.

    Got some information wrong Max effective range of a good OC spray 25 feet for fog and 18 feet for gel/foam with the gel/foam due to extra chemicals more likely to take vision of target. Next if you ever see the flip top or the gun shape holding or the under rail them backwards is quite unlikely in fact due to lower safety switch requirement you are in fact more likely to unload well design OC spray product than a gun. Yes it possible to unload a bullet at the same time dropping OC spray on target if the spray is mounted to gun.

    Reality is for 99 percent of self defence engagements is 20 feet or less in fact majority are still at 10 feet. So yes you might be able to shoot well enough to hit target at 50 yards but the reality is that ability is only usable when you know the target is hostile. Sad reality is you will only start working out if target is hostile in 99 percent of cases when target is under 20 feet. Shooting 50 yard in most cases is only useful to defend others not yourself. I will give you there are a lot of OC spray products in the 3 to 10 feet max range and these should be classed as mostly useless of course people not knowing sell-defence combat requirements still buy them. Same with buying OC spray products are that not designed for easy operation so hold them backwards.

    Robert Pogson
    Pepper spray is better than nothing, a lot better, but it is not as effective as a rifle in some cases.
    Numbers do not agree for pure self defence this is 1 on 1. Of course that pepper spray is effective at protect you against a bear does not mean it will be effective at protect your gear(like the kayak) or another person. Pepper spray is not designed to protect other. This is where gun comes in protecting the other around you when the bear is not targeting you directly any more you have way better chance at a clean killing shot.

    Of course having pepper spray does require some common sense. The kayak would have contained food right. So she pepper spray bear so she is no longer a viable food source so bear switches to next viable food source. So the kayak video was a true 2 targets one hostile. So pepper spray would have been to protect her and a gun would have been to protect kayak. So yes travel by kayak that is containing food in bear country without a gun to protect it is taking a very bad risk.

    Same is true for inside a house objective is to protect the house the other and the other is keeping the bear distracted. Even a wild dog hunt is about protect others not protecting you self directly.

    They hunt people down, particularly children and elderly.
    Even wild dogs it the yearly hunt that makes carrying the gun like object in fact work. On Fraser island in Australia they use an ultrasonic defence setup around where people mostly are and the fact the dogs there are mostly controlled by non gun means the result is carrying a gun like object gives no protection. Use of ultrasonics and sprays against wild dogs results in them mostly avoid humans with or without guns.

    Without a rifle in hand I would have been toast. A rifle certainly makes a good defensive weapon.
    No reality it why it makes a really poor defensive weapon. Since if you had been caught without rifle you would have been in trouble. Far better to train the animals that we as skunks so they avoid as with or without weapons.

  12. dougman says:

    Pepper Spray? LMAO….

    The maximum range of which is 3-10 feet, I can hit you in the head with my 1911 at 50 yards. Careful, carrying pepper spray is dangerous and likely to get you killed, or at the very least you’d spray yourself int eh face by holding the device backwards.

  13. oiaohm wrote, “pepper spray in face of bear is exactly the same thing. Bear has a lot more trouble running you down and harming you when it cannot see you.”

    Pepper spray is better than nothing, a lot better, but it is not as effective as a rifle in some cases.

    Youtube: Bear deterred by spray but still wrecks kayak. Losing equipment/food in the wilderness is very dangerous.

    Bears sometimes break into homes for food. In a confined space a sprayed bear may not be able to escape. A trapped bear is even more dangerous. A rifle is safer/more reliable.

    Military/police train with/against OC spray and are not blinded. An angry/cornered bear charging will have all the motivation needed to finish an attack.

  14. oiaohm wrote, “A proper defensive weapon does have data of being in fact successful at its operation to provide self defence . What a firearm does not have.” and a bunch of other silly ideas.

    For years I worked in remote northern villages where feral dogs kill people every few years. The solution most use is to cull the dogs by declaring a “dog day” and inviting almost anyone with a rifle to go do the deed all over town and in the vicinity. Shooters may be paid a bounty or supplied ammunition. Owners are warned to secure their dogs. All others are killed. These dogs are dangerous. They hunt people down, particularly children and elderly. I’ve personally been told not to leave the built up areas around such places for my own safety. I did carry a rifle and never had a problem. The dogs are smart enough and experienced enough to equate a rifle as a threat to their existence. A single person with a single rifle is very safe in such circumstances. A rifle can be a defensive weapon even if it is not actually fired.

    At one place, before C-68 (Canada’s latest wave of “gun/people control”) hit the fan, it was my practice to leave town early Saturday mornings and shoot targets a couple of miles outside of town. I only once saw dogs and they were chasing a caribou that got lost and wandered into town. Without a rifle in hand I would have been toast. A rifle certainly makes a good defensive weapon.

  15. oiaohm says:

    OH, whats a “proper” defensive weapon, do tell.

    A proper defensive weapon does have data of being in fact successful at its operation to provide self defence . What a firearm does not have. Pepper spray oleoresin capsicum (OC) is the top of the list in different form factors and for broad range of target control.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITpj2SNxc2w
    Problem is you see videos like this played the wrong. The thieves are only caught due to a electronic locking door. Other than that the pepper spray had rendered the person with a gun unable to aim so had in fact protected there escape other than the locked door. So lets presume those thugs had pepper spray backed by gun guess what the store holder with gun would have lost because the thugs had started the fight with a self defensive class weapon so rendering gun usage by store holder to min effectiveness.

    So if your objective is escape most case Pepper spray win more often than not. If your objective is neutralise target you need a vision disabling self defence weapon (pepper spray, tactical flash-light….) followed by gun usage is your pattern so target has low odds of getting a good shot at you.

    Key targets of a self defence weapon is either personal protection(body armour) or targets vision disabling(pepper spray, tactical flash-light….). Of course vision disabling so target cannot make clean shot on you is preferred if you know where target is. Body armour helps when you don’t know where target is.

    To be truthful pull out their pistol and say its for self defence and a person like me just laughs because its missing a tactical flash-light. In fact a tactical flash-light can be used without a gun very effectively but its not as nailing pepper spray.

    Notice something here the tactical flash-light on the gun would the self-defence weapon to protect you. Gun would the the force multiple that turns that long term physical harmless tactical flash-light self-defence into a lethal stopping force to prevent the target you aim at stray shots killing others. So the firearm in this case is not to defend you but purely to defend others.

    This is the big problem most people just carry a gun then say that is self-defence while completely forgetting the basics required to neutralise targets ability to aim at you. Do you really want a fair duel or do you want a dual bias in your favour.

    This is why I have no problems if you are carrying a gun understanding its just a force multiplier this way you do undertake correct processes of considering what you require to blind target. Yes pepper spray in face of bear is exactly the same thing. Bear has a lot more trouble running you down and harming you when it cannot see you.

  16. dougman says:

    “Question do you really want to be carrying a firearm in public places instead of a proper defensive weapon?”

    OH, whats a “proper” defensive weapon, do tell.

  17. oiaohm says:

    http://archive.boston.com/news/science/articles/2012/03/14/study_guns_not_best_defense_against_angry_bear/
    Robert Pogson
    A single person is better off with a rifle in an encounter with a bear.
    When you look at the numbers. This is false. A single person encountering a angry bear is more likely to die if they have a rifle than if they don’t have a rifle. Shot bear don’t hit anything quickly fatal of course bear is 100 percent now going to attempt to kill you. So a rifle in a solo case just increase the odds of fatality for both the person with the gun and the bear.

    The weapon of choice as a solo human against a bear is pepper spray with possibly a gun backing up the pepper spray. Having the combination of pepper spray and gun used right created the two requirement. So while bear is dealing with pepper spray (target one) it gives you(target two) time to line up and use gun effectively.

    Every time you look at the numbers when someone solo attempts to use only a gun as self-defence against humans or animals all it results in is increased death rate all round.

    The reality is gun is not a self defence weapon. For a solo person a gun is force-multiplier to the proper self defence weapon they have. If the solo person with a gun with out a proper self defence weapon end up force-multiplier on the all round risk for every-one/thing involved.

    Gun used with a self-defence weapon like bullet resistant vest and pepper spray end up with lethality mostly on the side without the proper self-defence weapon.

    The problem of thinking of a gun as a self defence weapon is the fact people end up walking out the door with a gun and failed to take something that is a real self defence weapon so just increase their odds of being dead in every statistically studied case.

    Force-multiplier offensive weapon is really the correct thing to class a firearm as.

    This is my problem with carrying pistols in public in civilised countries the statistics say for most people it makes absolutely no sense. Having pepper spray and tasers in most cases make way more sense and in fact work more often in human on human cases.

    Question do you really want to be carrying a firearm in public places instead of a proper defensive weapon? Think very carefully how much do you really value your life.

  18. dougman wrote, “The founding documents of the United States do not provide support for a right to health care.”

    ISTR there’s something about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think healthcare fits there. That’s irrelevant. There’s nothing in there preventing development of single-payer healthcare. It’s efficient, affordable and it works for people. The idea of insurance is to share risks. That’s best at the widest base of coverage, everyone. All kinds of efficiency flows from Medicare in Canada. Instead of a hundred insurance agencies hiring salesmen with resultant overhead there’s just a few offices and national standards. General revenue of the government covers it all.

    “In 2006, per-capita spending for health care in Canada was US$3,678; in the U.S., US$6,714. The U.S. spent 15.3% of GDP on healthcare in that year; Canada spent 10.0%. In 2006, 70% of healthcare spending in Canada was financed by government, versus 46% in the United States.”

    BTW, life expectancy in Canada is 82 while it’s only 79 in USA. Our healthcare system saves lives, for a while anyway…

  19. dougman says:

    “The Declaration of Independence is not the Law of the Land, the Constitution is.”

    Never said it was. Also it depends on how you define, “Law of the Land”. For me it means due process, which is laid out in the document.

  20. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “In the United States, people already have a right to purchase health care, but they should never have a right to receive health care free of charge. Health care is a service that should be paid for, not a right.”

    Fishing Again, Are We?

    P.S. The Declaration of Independence is not the Law of the Land, the Constitution is.

  21. dougman says:

    The founding documents of the United States do not provide support for a right to health care. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does it say there is a right to health care. The purpose of the US Constitution, as stated in the Preamble, is to “promote the general welfare,” not to provide it.

    In the United States, people already have a right to purchase health care, but they should never have a right to receive health care free of charge. Health care is a service that should be paid for, not a right.

  22. dougman wrote, “That is what insurance is for you idiot.”

    …and are you sure your policy covers you for whatever or that the company won’t go bankrupt or…? You can’t beat a big central sole-payer for reliability. That kind of thing is why we have government, you idiot. And what if you can’t afford insurance??? Other governments have few if any problems with universal health insurance. Why be so backwards?

  23. dougman says:

    “The great fun of dyslexia stuff up”

    SO you have a dyslexia and you stuff it up, wow.

  24. dougman says:

    “Then have a heart attack or cancer or a stroke. Go bankrupt/become homeless.”

    That is what insurance is for you idiot.

  25. oiaohm, moving goalposts, wrote, “The second person in your group with a firearm is to protect you and the firearm in your hands is to protect them.”

    We were discussing one person being protected or not with a firearm as a force-multiplier. Now you are talking about having multiple firearms in a group. That’s two different conditions. A single person is better off with a rifle in an encounter with a bear. A group of people are better off with two rifles instead of one. In both cases, firearms are decent defensive weapons. Forbidding people to go out on the land individually is making rural residents second class citizens. We are not that. There are many activities where individuals should go out alone: hunting, gathering, reconnoitring may all be more effective splitting up the group. Taking firearms along is a good backup. Obviously an encounter with a dangerous animal is a rare event so sticking with a group is very wasteful of resources.

    Bears of the grizzly kind are undeterred by herds of deer or people. They attack like bowling balls and take what they want. They can outrun most prey in a sprint and are afraid of nothing but fire naturally. They are top of the food chain and know it. Black bears tend to be predators of opportunity but grizzlies hunt. A firearm is the best tool against them whether individually or in a group.

  26. dougman wrote, “I visit the doc if need be, pay with cash and walk out. NO government medical system in my world.”

    Grow old/have a meagre income. Then have a heart attack or cancer or a stroke. Go bankrupt/become homeless. USA has tens of millions without medical insurance despite Obamacare. That’s disgusting.

  27. oiaohm says:

    Since when do you care about spelling?
    For a very long time in fact thinking I was one of the ones that requested that firefox/netscape add spell checker to text boxes.

    Reason why I use restricted punctuation and variation in grammar that is the result is in fact to reduce spelling errors by me. Not that that always works. Please note I typed shop instead to shot yes p is no where near t. The great fun of dyslexia stuff up I can copy type perfectly but typing idea is challenge at times.

    If I did not care about spelling at all I would use more complex punctuation rules and not care about the mess that would produce.

    Please note my state of mind can make my language worse. So some of my hard to read text you get from me is basically caused by people being insulting.

    Basically you made a bigot presume that just because a person is making errors they don’t care about them. Reality I care about them to a point. There is a line of what is achievable. Waiting 48 hours between writing a post and submitting it does not work on-line. I do need a 48 hour gap to be able to see typed defects and be able to correct them when using more complex punctuation rules and more common grammar.

    So the common mistake with me is that I don’t in fact have poor english any more. I have a mental fault that means it does take me a long time to produce english at my max level. Yet I can reduce the time frame down if I take a few legal english short cuts like restricting punctuation rules to the absolute min number. The differences is from 48 hours to be able to reasonably proof to be able to reasonable proof in under 10mins.

    Oxford University in fact wrote what is classed as the absolute min in punctuation and grammar and mechanics for academically acceptable english.

    Then there is what is classed as scientific english spelling. Scientific english spelling cat and kat are the same word as it put the sound letters ahead of letters used. I did use scientific english spelling for quite a long time so using wrong through/threw and so on from time to time comes from that. Again totally academically acceptable. It was a work around when my english was way worse than it is now. Of course this is most likely another thing that gives you trouble as you would never read a lot of scientific english spelling written documents. It was designed to assist those who first language is not english also used with people with dyslexia and other conditions at times.

    I am kind enough not to write everything in scientific english spelling style as that is really my native form of english. I have done that a few times when I have been really annoyed. Yes the english I am using here is basically second language. So I know I have a few bad habits/faults and I am in fact working on them. Some will most likely never be changeable.

  28. dougman says:

    ““good shop drops” Great that should be “good shot drops”. When spell checkers are useless.”

    Since when do you care about spelling?

  29. oiaohm says:

    “good shop drops” Great that should be “good shot drops”. When spell checkers are useless.

  30. oiaohm says:

    It’s definitely not true in rural areas where ordinary folks may have to deal with predators/rabid animals or to get food using a firearm.
    The rule stays basically true even in rural that a firearm is not to defend yourself. Taking on a predator or rabid animal with a gun if you are not good shot will still result in you being the decoy for other people near you to be protected. Problem here is attempting to run with a gun means your means to take a good shop drops massively. So depending on the gun in your hand for self defence basically does not work out quite often. Now if you have to retreat from a predator/rabid animal and the person with you has a gun and can stay still and get a good shot your odds of living go way up. This is obeying the rule the gun is not there to protect you but to protect others.

    http://mentalfloss.com/article/54449/building-bear-proof-suit
    Yes a grizzly bear does provide quite an a level of nightmare attempting to made body armour to provide self defence.

    By remembering that a gun is not self protection also means if you are going into grizzly bear areas you kinda would not go in by-self. So that if you are in trouble the other person at least with you can get a position to take a solid shot to protect you.

    Canada that no group leaves home without a firearm.
    There is a bug here. No group should leave without two firearms in two peoples hands in hostile conditions. This is about covering fire and the limitation of firearm usage.

    Firearm is not self defence. It is a item to defend others not yourself.
    Applying this condition of firearm usage means a firearm to protect you will not be in your hands. The second person in your group with a firearm is to protect you and the firearm in your hands is to protect them. This is part of using a firearms correctly. The word self and firearm don’t go together at all. Bit like the old saying no I in Team. Correct usage of firearms is team usage.

    no safety in numbers
    Not exactly true safety with firearms in hostile areas depends on numbers solo really does equal more likely to become dead. The hostile animal might not be put off by numbers but numbers helps to prevent hostile animal getting jump on you and providing options to effectively retreat.

    To be safe in hostile areas you cannot believe a gun is self protection. You have to believe a gun is to protect others. So to get protection from a gun someone else other than you has to have one at least to provide you with covering fire.

    The problem with thinking that a firearm is for self defence is it give the idea that you can take a firearm go out by yourself and in fact be safe when that is in fact a very good way to die.

    Firearms are a necessity not an evil in our society but they have to be used wisely.
    I totally agree with this. Part of using them wisely is understanding what the limitations are of Firearms using the words “self defence” with firearm is not right. Firearm is part of “group defence” and works very well used that way.

    Robert a lot of rural deaths in many countries do trace to people thinking a firearm has given them self defence so have gone out by themselves so ending up dead.

  31. oiaohm wrote, “Firearm is not self defence. It is a item to defend others not yourself.”

    There’s some truth to that in a congested urban environment where bad guys can always out-manoeuvre an armed good guy, whether by superior numbers (rush) or ambush or coming in the back way. It’s definitely not true in rural areas where ordinary folks may have to deal with predators/rabid animals or to get food using a firearm.

    Hunting is a very safe process with proper training. When Manitoba instituted training as a requirement for licensing, firearms accidents plunged from many per year to years per accident. So, hunting is a good counter-example, thousands of ordinary citizens spending days on end with firearms in hand. The big difference is that accidental/inappropriate discharges can be virtually eliminated with a modicum of care and the population density out in the bush can be much lower by many orders of magnitude compared to cities. It doesn’t make much sense to treat such different situations identically which is what ill-advised governments have tried repeatedly and failed.

    It’s common practice, not regulation, in some parts of Canada that no group leaves home without a firearm. Women and kids picking berries on the tundra usually take a firearm because nothing else will help them if a grizzly bear spots them. Anything that moves is food for a grizzly. They are the top of the food chain and excellent predators. They do not respect people and there’s no safety in numbers. That’s an extreme but much of Canada has to live that way. Much further south, wild dogs, a few cats, wild hogs, black bears, and rabid animals may also need to be reached with a firearm at a safe distance. Ranchers either poison or shoot gophers too because the badgers dig them out and injure cattle as a result.

    I’ve hunted for food for 60 years. It’s a way of life city-dwellers may not accept but it’s our reality. I happen to live in a rural municipality that forbids hunting/shooting. That’s because most land has been subdivided for residential purposes and the density is too high to risk stray bullets. A few miles from here that’s not the case and deer would multiply and consume crops completely if not hunted. A few miles further on it’s difficult to farm or hunt because predators are numerous. Firearms are a necessity not an evil in our society but they have to be used wisely.

  32. oiaohm wrote, “There are a lot of downsides to carrying a gun that increase your death rate and at times death rates of others who are doing nothing wrong.”

    The incidents of police shooting unarmed folks is proof of that. Police are both trained to get close to suspects and also to shoot first and ask questions later, a recipe for collateral damage. People who didn’t understand English have been shot and killed for “not following instructions”. People producing identity have been killed after someone shouts, “GUN!”. It’s totally bizarre. In my life I’ve carried a rifle/shotgun for hunting and rarely for protection but I would never do so in close proximity to others doing random things around me. That’s crazy. A handgun being highly portable may seem practical but put a bunch of people in a movie theatre with them and watch a misunderstanding evolve into a shootout with mass casualties. Situations like that demand proper rules of engagement, guards with elevated positions, training and practice. You can’t both have the general population packing in diverse situations and not require more than little or no training. That’s a recipe for disaster.

    2nd Amendment is to protect citizens from tyranny, not their neighbours or strangers passing by. It’s about protecting society, not individuals. It’s not protecting society to kill tens of thousands accidentally or deliberately each year. Police may need ready firearms but the vast majority of citizens don’t. There is evidence that having a small proportion of citizens armed, equipped, trained and screened is a net benefit but random hooligans with guns is frightening. I’ve been out in the field hunting/shooting and seen quite ordinary, solid, citizens do really stupid things with firearms. Give them an urgent situation and the error rate rises.

  33. oiaohm says:

    http://www3.nd.edu/~jbrockm1/WittBrockmole_inPress_JEPHPP.pdf
    This is a very good read. By carrying a gun you are more likely to incorrectly identify people with and without guns to the point of shooting a person holding something harmless and not being able to see correct clear path away from person with gun due to seeing harmless items carried by other people as guns so less able to escape a violent event.

    Yes 2012 study and following studies into it. There are a lot of downsides to carrying a gun that increase your death rate and at times death rates of others who are doing nothing wrong.

    You really don’t want untrained people waking around with guns as soon as you come aware they cannot tell the difference between a harmless object and a gun very dependably. Put a bullet proof vest on a untrained don’t increase death rate to them or others but put a gun in a hand of a improperly trained increase death rate for everyone.

    The right to carry arms in the USA with the newer studies really does need revisions. If not forbid arms at least forbidding carrying arms in public without suitable level of training to reduce false identify non weapons as weapons.

    The old saying of a double sided sword really comes into play with guns.

  34. oiaohm says:

    Prof David Hemenway of Harvard
    Ham-dong did not read my link did you. The National Rifle Association did not use the University of Pennsylvania other than to compare to what they already had.

    The Harvard numbers funded by the National Rifle Association show exactly the same problem with legal gun owners. Basically they came clear how long they had know facts when they backed the Charles Branas numbers.

    Ham-dong I can bring in university study after university study around the world over this very topic and they all say the same thing. Firearm is not self defence. It is a item to defend others not yourself.

    This is like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off unencumbered by safety equipment designed to slow their descent.

    A gun is not safety equipment. A bullet resistant materials would like a parachute and with the same issues of they do unencumber. A gun turns out to be like the removable door that lets you jump out the aircraft.

    Reality gun and bullet resistant vest is like the relationship between fighter aircraft and parachute. One is to kill enemy to protect others and one is to attempt to protect your life.

    So if you are talking about safely equipment you should not be wearing a gun without wearing a bullet resistant vest or the like. Why by wearing gun with bullet resistant vest keep your risk of death about the same as if you are not wearing either. Why the bullet resistant material is the protection item.

    The issue is carrying gun by itself by the numbers is a mistake.

    Yes the idiot arguement comparing gun usage to parachute usage is a complete mistake that is apples vs oranges. Parachute usage and Bullet resistant vest usage have many things in common both are to slow a fast moving object to slower speed to reduce human harm and both are very hard to use offensively so they are defensive items.

  35. oiaohm says:

    By the way the early study showing that a gun was not self defence is back in 1984 and why Macgyver tv series has the main char not using a gun ever.

    Carrying a gun is to protect others or hunt something. Most likely protect other people who are not carry a gun. The price paid for protected others is a reduction in your own personal safety. Guns carrying is not without its price. Personally I would prefer people who are carrying guns do so with properly informed consent knowing that it is not in fact assisting their own personal safety. I have no problem if a person says to me they carry a gun to protect others and accept the reduction in safety that comes with it.

    Saying they carry it for self defence is believing a myth about something a gun never grants but in fact reduces so have not in fact made proper informed consent on weapon usage.

  36. dougman says:

    LOL, best comment on that page.

    “WHO is this article meant to sway? I’m a yank and it’s a British publication. You people are ALREADY disarmed. Your government brainwashing on guns is complete. Why bother beating this dead horse? Do we like preaching to the choir then? ”

    “The National Rifle Association of the USA went and run their own study and restricted to to legal gun owners.”

    So what, if you run a study on guns you study “gun-owners”.

    “Charles Branas study has basically been peer reviewed and proven solid.”

    Peered reviewed? LOL…most certainly not by you!

    Lets see in Philadelphia, some researchers at the University of Pennsylvania find, possessing a gun is strongly associated with getting shot. OK….. So since “guns did not protect those who possessed them,” they conclude, “people should rethink their possession of guns.” This is like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off unencumbered by safety equipment designed to slow their descent.

    Can this study possibly be as stupid as it sounds? LMAO…

    Who am I to argue with the great HAM-DONG?..he knows everything and nothing at all!

  37. oiaohm says:

    Ham-Dong
    https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2013/mar/25/guns-protection-national-rifle-association
    Ham-Dong idiot picking holes. The National Rifle Association of the USA went and run their own study and restricted to to legal gun owners. The result a gun provide absolutely no self defence protection at all in fact just like Charles Branas increased odds of death.

    So Ham-Dong Charles Branas is right. The results don’t in fact improve if you restrict yourself legal gun owners who are non criminals. So the Charles Branas study has basically been peer reviewed and proven solid.

    So there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Charles Branas study other than idiots who attempt to berry head in sand and come up with some excuse why it does not apply to them.

  38. dougman says:

    You mean the “study” led by Joyce Foundation beneficiary Charles Branas?

    The one that restricted the test population to fit the results they wanted, made no distinction between peaceable citizens and those involved in the criminal underworld, and lumped gun owners in with “gun possessors”? That study??

    http://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/The-highly-misleading-Branas-study.pdf

    Please read the analysis of said study, and it will showed that it is flawed. As, Branas own article reveals that 53% of the shooting victims confessed to having a criminal record. How many more had such records but did not reveal them is unknowable since Branas and his team apparently did no background checks.

    So to conclude, this study only establishes the fact that if you are a criminal and carry a gun, you are almost 5 times like to to be shot. 😛

    Sorry Ham-Dong, reading New Scientist magazine, does not make you immediately intelligent. LOL….you have a false sense of reality.

    Canadians nor Australians cannot comprehend a fundamental right that Americans enjoy, so how could they even begin to comment on such?

  39. oiaohm says:

    dougman reality is neither Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump could be governor general of Australia. Yes that is the equal role for powers. Even allowing for Australia extending retirement age to 70. All key government positions person has to be for the term of office under the retirement age. So 69 and 70 is kinda insane.

    Please do remember Donald Trump has not had a full medical either. This is something I have always found wrong with the USA system. Person coming governor general of Australia has to under go a full military medical due to technically being head of armed forces. Yes for some reason the President of the USA does not have to have a full military medical. Just seams nuts.

    Before Obamacare, you just paid for insurance, ate well and exercise and make regular visits to the doctor. Government should have never intervened in healthcare.
    In fact the stats say this was not happening on average in the USA. People have not been affording insurance or drugs to treat illnesses so items like ADS had started creeping up in numbers in the USA. Obamacare was attempt to address something before it got too far out of control. I will say that still needs a lot of work. Things by the stats start going wrong in people using private insurance about in the USA about 15 years before Obamacare.

    The nightmare in the USA system with insurance is the insurance company gets the right to set what doctors and hospitals you have access to.

    *shrug* Whats wrong with carrying a sidearm to defend oneself? I enjoy carrying my Glock.
    Question is it defending yourself.
    https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
    When you look at the numbers the answer is NO its not self defence and really does not defend oneself. By carrying a sidearm you are in fact many times more likely to die than the person standing next to you not carrying a sidearm. If you wanted something that is kind of successful you would wear body armour not carrying a sidearm. Yes police offset there downside of carrying a firearm by wearing body armour.

    Yes the self defence argument for carrying a firearm is mostly bogus. The stats say you should not be carrying a firearm to save yourself because that is not what it does in most cases. Stats say you should be carrying a firearm if you expect to lay down your life to save others or hunting. If you want self defence you want body armour.

    Sorry carrying a gun if you are identified as carrying a gun just makes you the first person to get shot. This is why body armour is important so it hopefully takes the first shot and you then get to act offensively to defend others.

    If you are not wearing body armour there is no point really carrying a gun on public. Next problem is most people from TV don’t understand guns properly so when they have a gun instead of running like they should when not wearing body armour hide behind something that is not bullet resistant/proof. A gun is only usable to defend oneself if you have self defence being something bullet resistant/proof to protect you otherwise you should just retreat until you get to that position.

    Basically the firearm self defence agreement is mostly made by under educated idiots on firearm usage in combat. Firearm usage in combat covers a lot of statistics information to reduce the risk of you being killed just because you having a firearm including what is bullet resistant/proof to hide behind to defend oneself.

    Firearm is an offensive weapon not a defensive weapon. Thinking a offensive weapon defends oneself is a big mistake as all that does is get oneself killed normally without using the weapon even to save others. As soon as you draw or carry a firearm you should have resigned yourself that you could have just signed your own death sentence.

    USA people due to the wild wild west stories consider firearm self defence even when most of that history says the people in towns who did not wear file arms and paid marshals and the like to take the risk rarely died from firearms. Yes the was the people with guns who died the most in the wild wild west. Yes the myth that guns are self defence mostly come out of the USA wild wild west when it was as back then as it is now carrying a firearm just increases your odds of death so reducing your means to defend self.

    If someone is saying to me they carry a firearm so if something happens they can defend others at possible lose of their life they do understand what a firearm is doing for them.

  40. dougman says:

    Admit it, you secretly want to become American as you envy our way of life.

    “They are 10 times more numerous than Canadians and more of them are stark raving mad”

    Don’t forget it either. We should just conquer Mexico and Canada, while making them our territories.

    “spending years and $billions on election campaigns”

    *shrug* The political process has always been grandiose, nothing wring in spending money for the process.

    “packing heat in traffic and grocery stores”

    *shrug* Whats wrong with carrying a sidearm to defend oneself? I enjoy carrying my Glock.

    “not having universal single-payer healthcare”

    Before Obamacare, you just paid for insurance, ate well and exercise and make regular visits to the doctor. Government should have never intervened in healthcare.

    Speaking of ill-health, have you seen the latest Hillary collapse video?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PkYh7si23w

  41. dougman, wrongly, wrote, “Funny you never speak of Trudeau, I wonder why.”

    Searching Trudeau site:mrpogson.com gets you 4 hits. I do worry more about what the USAians are doing however. They are 10 times more numerous than Canadians and more of them are stark raving mad: spending years and $billions on election campaigns, packing heat in traffic and grocery stores, not having universal single-payer healthcare, talking over each other, responding with spin/deflection/outright lies to simple questions like “What is Trump’s position on X?”. I guess watching the USAian trainwreck makes me love Canada more. Whatever differences I may have with Trudeau and his late father pale into insignificance with my differences with Hillary, Trump and 80% of USAian politicians. Even the most sane of them, the Libertarians, are nuts by Canadian standards.

  42. dougman says:

    Funny you never speak of Trudeau, I wonder why.

Leave a Reply