On Oct 12, 11:43*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:











..

You still don't see the entire scale of the problem.
The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all
the other negative side effects.

And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any
of the positives

E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you
out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of
extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that
shoots at the criminal.

1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what
wealth they have to pay for drugs.
2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with
scoring and enjoying the high.
3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the
car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance
4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to
make sure he's not a threat any more
5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have
my car.
6) The druggie is dead.
7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good
shoot.
Problem solved

It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little
realistic.

BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but
heard of such crimes.

The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil
laws, because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and
possession ('Besitz').
The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only
possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special
certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored
in a safe place.
Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't
know the reason for that.)

Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the
police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these
people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance
drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of
life, what has a value, too.

That's only true in your worst-case scenario
IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs
are
1) hauling off the body to the morgue
2) Autopsy
3) police filing a good shoot report
4) buying ammo to replace what was used.

The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is
commonly used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of
currency.

For example the use of a machine belongs to costs, even if the machine
is already paid.

Imagine all the money, the American taxpayer pay. Pile that up in coins.
That is a HUGE pile.

Thats what you have (the American people).

Than you take HUGE caterpillars to grab the money for the military, the
various agencies, the government, schools, wellfare, streets and so forth..

What is left isn't a mountain, but still a hill. This is for the nicer
things.

If you use money from this pile, than the nicer things are reduced,
because that money is spent for something else.

The cost is now not the money spent, but the reduction of things you like..

- E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure
- and beauty, but a new - say - stadium would.
-
- Than the cost of that prison is
- (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium.

The Prison provides Free Long-Term {Safe}
Housing for Criminals 24/7/365 for Years
and even Decades. And Thus is an Effective
Use of the Public's Money/Resources.
* Removing the Criminals from a lifestyle
of Self-Abuse of Drugs and Alcohol
* Removing the Criminals from a lifestyle
of Crime and Victimizing 'other' Members**
of Society ** Law-Abiding Good Citizens
* Creating a Safer {Crime Free} Society
* Saving the Lives of Non-Criminals
-note- In Prisons Criminals Only Victimize
'other' Criminals; and not the Good Citizens
of Society

Stadiums are NOT an Effective Use of the Public's
Money; often they are under-utilized and waste of
needed Resources.

Stadiums make Team Owners Rich and make Players
Rich : While Denying Safe Free Public Housing
to the Poor and Food for Poor Starving Children.

On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:











..

You still don't see the entire scale of the problem.
The prison is only the 'tip of the iceberg'. But try to imagine all
the other negative side effects.

And you are only focused on the "negative side effects" and ignore any
of the positives

E.g. the addictive person steals a car, for example yours. To get you
out off the car, he points a gun at you. Now we have some sort of
extreme situation, but lets imagine you are rescued by somebody, that
shoots at the criminal.

1) Very few addicts bother getting guns. They are too busy using what
wealth they have to pay for drugs.
2) Very few addicts do car-jackings. They are far more occupied with
scoring and enjoying the high.
3) Why should someone else rescue me, when I can put a bullet in the
car-jacking druggie, the moment I get a chance
4) If I pull my gun, I will most likely unload it into the druggie, to
make sure he's not a threat any more
5) I may be "in shock" after the shooting, but I'm alive and still have
my car.
6) The druggie is dead.
7) The police have little to do except advise the DA that it was a good
shoot.
Problem solved

It was an example. But I have the impression, it was at least a little
realistic.

BTW: In Germany we don't have 'carjacking'. Didn't know that word, but
heard of such crimes.

The reason is a typical German speciality within the system of civil
laws, because we have a distinction between ownership ('Eigentum') and
possession ('Besitz').
The physical control ('Besitz') doesn't help much, because it is only
possession of a stolen car. To get ownership, you need a special
certificate of ownership ('Kraftfahrzeugbrief') , what is usually stored
in a safe place.
Armed street robbery is not very common here, too. (Actually I don't
know the reason for that.)

Now we have a person under shock and a badly injured criminal and the
police has a lot of work. The costs here are not only, what all these
people earn (policemen, hospital, prison wards, lawyers, ambulance
drivers and so forth), but somehow the negative effects on quality of
life, what has a value, too.

That's only true in your worst-case scenario
IN the alternate scenario with a dead carjacking druggie, the only costs
are
1) hauling off the body to the morgue
2) Autopsy
3) police filing a good shoot report
4) buying ammo to replace what was used.

The term 'cost' is used in economy differently to how the word is
commonly used. 'Cost' means the value of the items used in measures of
currency.

For example the use of a machine belongs to costs, even if the machine
is already paid.

Imagine all the money, the American taxpayer pay. Pile that up in coins.
That is a HUGE pile.

Thats what you have (the American people).

Than you take HUGE caterpillars to grab the money for the military, the
various agencies, the government, schools, wellfare, streets and so forth.

What is left isn't a mountain, but still a hill. This is for the nicer
things.

If you use money from this pile, than the nicer things are reduced,
because that money is spent for something else.

The cost is now not the money spent, but the reduction of things you like.

- E.g. a prison adds nothing to pleasure
- and beauty, but a new - say - stadium would.
-
- Than the cost of that prison is
- (besides - say - 10 mio $) one stadium.

The Prison provides Free Long-Term {Safe}
Housing for Criminals 24/7/365 for Years
and even Decades. And Thus is an Effective
Use of the Public's Money/Resources.
* Removing the Criminals from a lifestyle
of Self-Abuse of Drugs and Alcohol
* Removing the Criminals from a lifestyle
of Crime and Victimizing 'other' Members**
of Society ** Law-Abiding Good Citizens
* Creating a Safer {Crime Free} Society
* Saving the Lives of Non-Criminals
-note- In Prisons Criminals Only Victimize
'other' Criminals; and not the Good Citizens
of Society

Stadiums are NOT an Effective Use of the Public's
Money; often they are under-utilized and waste of
needed Resources.

Stadiums make Team Owners Rich and make Players
Rich : While Denying Safe Free Public Housing
to the Poor and Food for Poor Starving Children.
.

Streetlife has a value. That is the possibility to use public spaces
without fear. If you are afraid of being ripped off, than your
possibilities are reduced.

And the reverse, is that if there are armed citizens, street scum are
less apt to try to rip off people since the thing they fear the MOST,
ABOVE ALL ELSE, is an ARMED CITIZEN

Actually I think, what they fear most is the pain from having no drugs.
Next is the police and than - maybe - citizens.
Certain drugs reduce the ability to think rational to some extend, what
would make such people act like psychos. There is no way to deal with
such persons in a rational way. You would need to sedate them -maybe-
and take them to a hospital.

- Another subject are homeless people.
- These would possibly fall into your
- category, too, even if this is quite unfair.
-
- Homeless people are a threat to the
- public health, because a person needs
- a shelter and occasional possibility
- to have a shower (or alike).
- A homeless person is not a criminal,

-oops- Many are using drugs and alcohol; and
Commit Criminal Acts such as : Stealing, Theft,
Robbery, Violence, Injury and Killing.
.
- but could spread diseases, because
- the person has to live outside.

NAH - Usually are Diseased due to the
Addicted Use of Drugs and Alcohol; along
with Mental Illness.
.

The reduction of personal liberties, due to the 'war on drugs' is also
worth to mention.

Change of subject noted

Same with such thing as 'liberties'. Liberties certainly belong to the
nicer things, you like to have.

If you give up certain rights to achieve a certain effect, than this
right, you don't possess any more, belongs to the costs.

If you had to give up the right to - say - ride a horse, than loosing
this right reduces your possibilities. You can say: I never rides
horses, but some people do. So, the 'pain' of others counts, too.

Then income goes into generally wrong canals, because large revenues
are made through means, that are against the society in general. That
income attracts young people and guides them away from useful work
into drug related 'business'. This money feeds the criminals and let
them use that income, to finance other unwanted activities.

E.g. that money enables them, to bribe and corrupt officials,
policemen or politicians. These people can do real damage, if they
don't function like intended.

Don't disagree with you there
Prohibitions of any kind tend to
1) fail badly
2) result in unintended and usually negative side-effects.

Agree with you here, too.

Greetings

Thomas


Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down
the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically
is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their
skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different
one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM
SUCKERS!"

This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits,
royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ...

Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only
creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created
equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ...

Regards,
JS

Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
--

Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down
the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically
is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their
skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different
one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM
SUCKERS!"

This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits,
royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ...

Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only
creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created
equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ...

Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own
country. ('paperclip').

But beware, since now YOU have them.

I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the
states.

For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one
developed the Saturn V engines.)

Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got
ripped off...

TH

On Oct 13, 11:48*am, Thomas Heger wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--

Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down
the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically
is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their
skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different
one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM
SUCKERS!"

This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits,
royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ...

Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only
creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created
equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door ...

Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own
country. ('paperclip').

But beware, since now YOU have them.

I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the
states.

For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one
developed the Saturn V engines.)

Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got
ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
...



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got
ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the
Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject.
(Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching
films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the
pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly
sophisticated.

So: if the moon landing was faked, where then did the money go?

TH

Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF
wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
..



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got
ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the
Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject.
(Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching
films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the
pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly
sophisticated.


Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one)

Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg

It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the
landing module 'Eagle'.

But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while
the lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.

TH

Am 14.10.2011 18:46, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF
wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
..



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got
ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the
Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject.
(Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching
films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the
pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly
sophisticated.


Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one)

Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg

It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the
landing module 'Eagle'.

But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while
the lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.



There are - of course - more anomalies within this single photo.

to name a few:
If the orbiter was such an elaborated piece of engineering and certainly
very expensive. Why does it look like a tin can, with something glued
upon ? E.g. the lettering 'United States' misses half of the 'A'.

There are crosses, that should be all of the same size, but are not.

The conic tip would reflect only the surface and possibly the lander.
But we see something different, because there seem to be something
reflected, where darkness should be.

The contrast of the orbiter seems much higher than on the surface, but
the difference in luminosity should be greater on the surface (the
surface should have higher contrast).

Some of the rivets look like painted. Anyhow, 'rivets' wouldn't be the
most durable joint.

This metal piece near the conic tip looks rusty (?).


Greetings

TH

(Actually I regard it as kind of sport, to find 'easter-eggs', what are
such anomalies.)

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF
wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
..



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got
ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the
Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject.
(Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching
films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the
pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly
sophisticated.


Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one)

Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg

It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the
landing module 'Eagle'.

But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the
lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.

Certainly it can. Depending on the orbits used, the lander can easily
"descend" upon the orbiter. Indeed it is typical after undocking to go to a
slightly higher orbit to allow the orbiting craft/station to pass under you
(lower orbit being faster) until it clears the area, and then when you come
up on the point to begin your de-orbit burn the area is clear, as no matter
what you do at that point the other craft is only going to move further away
from you. If you tried to go a lower orbit move ahead of the orbiting craft
and then try to de-orbit the orbiting craft would be catching up to you as
you slowed and if you accidently "ballooned up" a bit because your angle was
slightly off....you could possibly even run into each other. Not a good
thing. Nor do you want to wait forever for the gap to open up enough as your
time in space is strictly limited. Safer to simply move a bit higher, let it
pass under you and then there is no possibility of that occurring. And gee,
while you're sitting there you snap a picture out the window and *poof* the
planet/moon is in the background. SOB.

So if this is your BEST evidence, then this is really going to blow your
socks off.

"The International Space Station photographed following separation from the
Space Shuttle Endeavour in 2001."

http://news.medinfo.ufl.edu/articles...ation-sensors/

Damn, is that the EARTH in the background?

"Last August, the Space Shuttle Endeavour crew captured this shot of the
International Space Station (ISS) against the backdrop of Planet Earth. "

http://www.astronomy-pictures.net/na..._pictures.html

Damn, there it is again.

"International Space Station (ISS), March 2011, taken from the Space Shuttle
Discovery after undocking at the end of its mission to the ISS"

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/395325/enlarge

And again. Damn, one might even see this as a theme.

"The international space station, shown here in a photo taken from the
shuttle Discovery in June"

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26441443/

So tell me does this mean the International Space Station is a fraud, or
shall we simply consider the possibility that what you see as photographic
flaws are really just a symptom of your ignorance of the mechanics of space
flight?

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 14.10.2011 18:37, schrieb Thomas Heger:
Am 14.10.2011 02:22, schrieb RHF:
On Oct 13, 11:48 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith: On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF
wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:

--
..



Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got
ripped off...

TH

TH, please tell us all just how the Apollo {Manned}
Mission to the Moon and Back was a 'rip-off' . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program

one does wonder . . . ~ RHF

Usually I don't maintain threads about guns. I have more interest in the
Apollo program and did my personal kind of 'research' on that subject.
(Mainly reading articles, following links on the internet, watching
films on YouTube and so forth).

Than I discuss my findings in forums like this one.

About the moon landing I have found a lot of inconsistencies within the
pictures taken.
My conclusion is, that these pictures were faked - not even particularly
sophisticated.


Since You most certainly don't trust me, I give you an example. (Only one)

Look at this picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ap...unar_orbit.jpg

It shows the lunar orbiter and the moon.
Since there is no other choice, the photo was obviously taken from the
landing module 'Eagle'.

But the term 'orbiter' refers to the orbit, this vehicle keeps, while the
lander lands.
Landing zone is usually below the orbit, hence the lander cannot take
photos from the orbiter with the moon in the back.


So basically you're claiming that since the person putting the label on did
not necessarily have a good grasp of teminology, the photo is a fake ?

This is the kind of stupidity that is so typical of the conspiracy nuts

"Thomas Heger" wrote in message
...
Am 13.10.2011 06:34, schrieb John Smith:
On 10/12/2011 2:11 PM, RHF wrote:
On Oct 12, 11:43 am, Thomas wrote:
Am 11.10.2011 18:50, schrieb SaPeIsMa:
--

Good point. A lot of arguments simply lead the mentally challenged down
the path to the "Nazi Death Camp Thinking." Which, very simplistically
is, "If they don't think like me, if they don't act like me, if their
skin is a different color than mine, if their religion is a different
one than mine, if they have wealth I can steal, etc., etc. -- KILL THEM
SUCKERS!"

This will always be the solution of criminals, sociopaths, misfits,
royalty, those thinking themselves special, etc. ...

Nazi Germany is just waiting to happen again, all over ... it is only
creator endowed rights, freedoms, privileges, all men being created
equal, etc. which deny that/those evil(s) and hold it/them out the door
...

Actually the Americans shipped a few Nazis to Argentina and to their own
country. ('paperclip').

But beware, since now YOU have them.

I'm really a little bit frightened, if I read about the situation in the
states.

For example: Wernher von Braun was a famous Nazi. (Another famous one
developed the Saturn V engines.)

Now please - think about the Apollo mission and how the Americans got
ripped off...


I know they were German
I have no knowledge of them being Nazis as well
Why don't you support your claim with some evidence.