| Author |
Garmin Navigator v7 Request
|
|
| PonderosaSports.com 2006-01-14, 5:48 pm |
| I am researching the complaints against NAVTEQ's geocoder supplying
erroneous
business locations to the GPS market.
I am requesting a business location lookup for -
Ponderosa Sports or
PonderosaSports.com
6854 Highway 55
Horseshoe Bend, Idaho 83629
The correct location should be -
43.9667N, 116.1878W
Thank you,
Cliff Harrison, owner
Cliff@PonderosaSport
s.com
| |
| Seagull 2006-01-14, 11:48 pm |
| PonderosaSports.com < cliff@ponderosasport
s.com> wrote:
>
> I am requesting a business location lookup for -
>
> Ponderosa Sports or
> PonderosaSports.com
> 6854 Highway 55
> Horseshoe Bend, Idaho 83629
This business is not in the database.
There also does not appear to be any street address geocoding in this
town.
Cheers,
John
--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
| |
| Phil Wheeler 2006-01-14, 11:48 pm |
| Seagull wrote:
> PonderosaSports.com < cliff@ponderosasport
s.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> This business is not in the database.
>
> There also does not appear to be any street address geocoding in this
> town.
>
Is the town on the map?
| |
| Anon E. Mouse 2006-01-14, 11:48 pm |
| On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:59:06 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Seagull wrote:
>
>Is the town on the map?
Yes, it definitely is on the map (north of Boise).
I have Mapsource CitySelect NA 7 and it shows the following things in
Horseshoe Bend:
Bogus Basin Ski Resort
Bogus Basin State Park
Boise Speech and Hearing Clinic
Cascade Raft Co.
Gittin Place
Grime Stoppers
Horseshoe's Hardware
Horseshoe Bend Senior Center
Riverside Restaurant
I don't see where it lists specific addresses on Hwy 55 so I would
guess that you would have to tell people either to use maps.google.com
(which definitely has your store) or give them directions from one of
the above places.
| |
|
| Well Cliff, this here is a USENET newsgroup.
What you want, pard, is to go here---->
http://www.navteq.com/updates/mapfeedback.html
and tell the people who create the software.
"PonderosaSports.com" < cliff@ponderosasport
s.com> wrote in message
news:1137257591.030147.261710@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I am researching the complaints against NAVTEQ's geocoder supplying
> erroneous
> business locations to the GPS market.
>
> I am requesting a business location lookup for -
>
> Ponderosa Sports or
> PonderosaSports.com
> 6854 Highway 55
> Horseshoe Bend, Idaho 83629
>
> The correct location should be -
>
> 43.9667N, 116.1878W
>
> Thank you,
> Cliff Harrison, owner
> Cliff@PonderosaSport
s.com
>
| |
| PonderosaSports.com 2006-01-15, 5:48 pm |
| Corrections have been requested for several years. Here are a few of
the replys.
MICROSOFT - Deleted all listings for Ponderosa Sports.
PonderosaSports.com is still listed but I expect it to be erased soon.
GOOGLE - It is NAVTEQ's fault - "Thank you for your note. We understand
that you'd like to correct the location of your business on Google
Local. Please be informed that the data used in "Map" mode of Google
Local is sourced largely from NAVTEQ and Tele Atlas. We're working with
our sources to refresh this data consistently, but we can't make any
manual changes."
NAVTEQ - It is Google's fault - "NAVTEQ makes navigation data available
up to four times each year to a wide range of manufacturers including
yours. It is important to note, however, that there is a lapse of 3-6
months between the time NAVTEQ data is made available to manufacturers
and the time that this data is introduced in the marketplace. Indeed,
if your suggestion requires an actual change be made to the database,
please be aware that the product containing that change will not be
available until a future release. Updated products are for sale
according to the product plans of your system manufacturer or
developer. We make every effort to ensure that our map data is fresh,
accurate, and up-to-date by employing full-time staff in more than 50
offices throughout Europe and 50 offices in North America. However, we
also appreciate conscientious drivers such as yourself who take the
time to tell us that we might need to make a change."
TO DATE - I am not aware of any map correction for the location of
Ponderosa Sports in the last five years. If any of the "OFFENDERS"
wants to be first, the correct location is - 43.9668=B0N, 116.1877=B0W
(NAD27).
| |
| Phil Wheeler 2006-01-15, 5:48 pm |
| PonderosaSports.com wrote:
> Corrections have been requested for several years. Here are a few of
> the replys.
>
>
> MICROSOFT - Deleted all listings for Ponderosa Sports.
> PonderosaSports.com is still listed but I expect it to be erased soon.
>
>
> GOOGLE - It is NAVTEQ's fault - "Thank you for your note. We understand
>
> that you'd like to correct the location of your business on Google
> Local. Please be informed that the data used in "Map" mode of Google
> Local is sourced largely from NAVTEQ and Tele Atlas. We're working with
>
> our sources to refresh this data consistently, but we can't make any
> manual changes."
>
>
> NAVTEQ - It is Google's fault - "NAVTEQ makes navigation data available
>
> up to four times each year to a wide range of manufacturers including
> yours. It is important to note, however, that there is a lapse of 3-6
> months between the time NAVTEQ data is made available to manufacturers
> and the time that this data is introduced in the marketplace. Indeed,
> if your suggestion requires an actual change be made to the database,
> please be aware that the product containing that change will not be
> available until a future release. Updated products are for sale
> according to the product plans of your system manufacturer or
> developer. We make every effort to ensure that our map data is fresh,
> accurate, and up-to-date by employing full-time staff in more than 50
> offices throughout Europe and 50 offices in North America. However, we
> also appreciate conscientious drivers such as yourself who take the
> time to tell us that we might need to make a change."
>
>
> TO DATE - I am not aware of any map correction for the location of
> Ponderosa Sports in the last five years. If any of the "OFFENDERS"
> wants to be first, the correct location is - 43.9668°N, 116.1877°W
> (NAD27).
>
Try sending money. I can't imagine any other reason the Mary Kay dealer
down the street (in a private residence) is a POI.
| |
|
| What is your point?
If you wanted to know where to request corrections/additions to Navteq maps,
the link was provided.
What does Microsoft or Google have to do with this? Your header was about
Garmin/Naveteq, not every geocode provider/user who ignores you.
If you want everyone here who reads this to petition Microsoft and Google to
make you whole, you might want to find a USENET group other than
alt.satellite.gps.garmin, don't you think?
Out of curiosity, and with all due respect, exactly how hard can it be to
find you in a population of about 850 and a land area of less than a square
mile, anyway?
"PonderosaSports.com" < cliff@ponderosasport
s.com> wrote in message
news:1137338739.404760.121660@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Corrections have been requested for several years. Here are a few of
the replys.
MICROSOFT - Deleted all listings for Ponderosa Sports.
PonderosaSports.com is still listed but I expect it to be erased soon.
GOOGLE - It is NAVTEQ's fault - "Thank you for your note. We understand
that you'd like to correct the location of your business on Google
Local. Please be informed that the data used in "Map" mode of Google
Local is sourced largely from NAVTEQ and Tele Atlas. We're working with
our sources to refresh this data consistently, but we can't make any
manual changes."
NAVTEQ - It is Google's fault - "NAVTEQ makes navigation data available
up to four times each year to a wide range of manufacturers including
yours. It is important to note, however, that there is a lapse of 3-6
months between the time NAVTEQ data is made available to manufacturers
and the time that this data is introduced in the marketplace. Indeed,
if your suggestion requires an actual change be made to the database,
please be aware that the product containing that change will not be
available until a future release. Updated products are for sale
according to the product plans of your system manufacturer or
developer. We make every effort to ensure that our map data is fresh,
accurate, and up-to-date by employing full-time staff in more than 50
offices throughout Europe and 50 offices in North America. However, we
also appreciate conscientious drivers such as yourself who take the
time to tell us that we might need to make a change."
TO DATE - I am not aware of any map correction for the location of
Ponderosa Sports in the last five years. If any of the "OFFENDERS"
wants to be first, the correct location is - 43.9668°N, 116.1877°W
(NAD27).
| |
| subdude 2006-01-15, 5:48 pm |
| On 15 Jan 2006 07:25:39 -0800, "PonderosaSports.com"
< cliff@ponderosasport
s.com> graced us with:
>Corrections have been requested for several years. Here are a few of
>the replys.
>
>
>MICROSOFT - Deleted all listings for Ponderosa Sports.
>PonderosaSports.com is still listed but I expect it to be erased soon.
>
Suggestion on your .com btw....lose the soundfiles.
I'd erase you just for the rank amateurish-ness of the site, one step
above dancing hamsters annoyance level.
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-15, 5:48 pm |
| subdude wrote...
>
> I'd erase you just for the rank amateurish-ness of the site, one step
> above dancing hamsters annoyance level.
I don't know about that (and Hamserdance was great fun whilst it lasted!)
but from a peaceable, relatively sane UK perspective - one look at
Ponderosa's stock in trade and I'm not suprised that it has disappeared from
mapping products!
There is a lot of stuff - both stock and attitudes - on the site of the sort
that gives Americans a very bad name around the world!
I have nothing against firearms per se but have a great objection to the
public sale of weapons with no possible use but to kill people - quickly and
in large numbers! Together with such inflammatory comments about people of
different just about anything, it would seem to a horribly dangerous mix!
However, I live in England where the majority of people hardly - if ever -
see a gun let alone feel that they have to own an arsenal of them and the
majority of citizens have no serious issues with people of a different
racial, sexual or political alignement.
David
| |
| Steve Landess 2006-01-15, 5:48 pm |
| David -
IMO, I think Cliff Harrison has a valid complaint and it appears that Navteq
and others are being non-responsive to his requests for accurate GPS
information about business locations.
I also believe that he was probably hoping that someone from Navteq might be
monitoring this group and it might help with his request, since it has
apparently fallen on deaf ears so far.
Of course, it may be that the Navteq person in charge of POI's and business
locations has a prejudice like yours against Ponderosa's type of business,
but as far as I can tell, no American laws are being broken. I agree that
their web site is rather amateurish and some of the comments may be in poor
taste, but the U.S. is SUPPOSEDLY the "land of the Free, and the Home of the
Brave", and I'll stand up for his right to own and sell guns...not to
mention the right of free speech!
A law-abiding, gun-owing American,
Steve Landess
Austin, Texas
"David Lee" < davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:1OOdnW- hgPFmP1feRVnyuQ@ecli
pse.net.uk...
> subdude wrote...
>
> I don't know about that (and Hamserdance was great fun whilst it lasted!)
> but from a peaceable, relatively sane UK perspective - one look at
> Ponderosa's stock in trade and I'm not suprised that it has disappeared
> from mapping products!
>
> There is a lot of stuff - both stock and attitudes - on the site of the
> sort that gives Americans a very bad name around the world!
>
> I have nothing against firearms per se but have a great objection to the
> public sale of weapons with no possible use but to kill people - quickly
> and in large numbers! Together with such inflammatory comments about
> people of different just about anything, it would seem to a horribly
> dangerous mix!
>
> However, I live in England where the majority of people hardly - if ever -
> see a gun let alone feel that they have to own an arsenal of them and the
> majority of citizens have no serious issues with people of a different
> racial, sexual or political alignement.
>
> David
>
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-15, 5:48 pm |
| Steve Landess wrote...
> David -
>
> IMO, I think Cliff Harrison has a valid complaint and it appears that
> Navteq and others are being non-responsive to his requests for accurate
> GPS information about business locations.
>
> I also believe that he was probably hoping that someone from Navteq might
> be monitoring this group and it might help with his request, since it has
> apparently fallen on deaf ears so far.
>
> Of course, it may be that the Navteq person in charge of POI's and
> business locations has a prejudice like yours against Ponderosa's type of
> business, but as far as I can tell, no American laws are being broken. I
> agree that their web site is rather amateurish and some of the comments
> may be in poor taste, but the U.S. is SUPPOSEDLY the "land of the Free,
> and the Home of the Brave", and I'll stand up for his right to own and
> sell guns...not to mention the right of free speech!
>
> A law-abiding, gun-owing American,
> Steve Landess
> Austin, Texas
I did make clear that I was posting from a UK perspective - where we are
filled with horror when we see the sort of people that are allowed to be
armed to the teeth - and apparently positively dangerous if not actually
insane. However from a British policing perspective: whilst no local laws
may be being broken, Ponderosa is definitely encouraging law breaking by US
citizens from other states - "You DO realize that it's illegal to take this
artillery piece back to California don't you sir, so you really ARE going to
store it somewhere else - nudge -nudge - wink -wink?" Yeah Right - as if!
However it's not my county and I'll take great care to keep well away from
Idaho!
I can't help wondering if the US gun culture means that GIs receive most of
their weapons training before joining up, which may have a bearing on the
fact that during the period of the actual Iraq war most (if not all) British
fatalities were as a result of being shot by Americans rather than Iraqis!
David
| |
| Steve Landess 2006-01-15, 11:48 pm |
| I've been shooting guns since the age of 10...and it's funny that you
mention American soldiers, BTW.
If it weren't for American GI's, people in the UK and France would be
speaking German these days...
-sjl
"David Lee" < davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:t4mdnXe6prJ- KlfenZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d
@eclipse.net.uk...
> Steve Landess wrote...
>
> I did make clear that I was posting from a UK perspective - where we are
> filled with horror when we see the sort of people that are allowed to be
> armed to the teeth - and apparently positively dangerous if not actually
> insane. However from a British policing perspective: whilst no local laws
> may be being broken, Ponderosa is definitely encouraging law breaking by
> US citizens from other states - "You DO realize that it's illegal to take
> this artillery piece back to California don't you sir, so you really ARE
> going to store it somewhere else - nudge -nudge - wink -wink?" Yeah
> Right - as if!
>
> However it's not my county and I'll take great care to keep well away from
> Idaho!
>
> I can't help wondering if the US gun culture means that GIs receive most
> of their weapons training before joining up, which may have a bearing on
> the fact that during the period of the actual Iraq war most (if not all)
> British fatalities were as a result of being shot by Americans rather than
> Iraqis!
>
> David
>
>
>
| |
| Seagull 2006-01-15, 11:48 pm |
| Steve Landess < steve_landess@hotmai
l.com> wrote:
>
> If it weren't for American GI's, people in the UK and France would be
> speaking German these days...
And if it wasn't for France, people in the US would still be under British
rule.
Cheers,
John
--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-15, 11:48 pm |
| Steve Landess...
> I've been shooting guns since the age of 10...and it's funny that you
> mention American soldiers, BTW.
> If it weren't for American GI's, people in the UK and France would be
> speaking German these days...
And to set the record straight: the USA was the only country to come out of
WW2 showing a profit! All your help did NOT come for free and as far as I
am aware we are expecting to make our last repayment for "lend-lease" at the
end of this year - 61 years after the end of WW2. So don't come the
selfless-saviours - if it wasn't for the US not wanting to go it alone
against the Japanese following Pearl Harbour Britain would have had to
continue struggling along on her own to the bitter end.
....and as for the thought of a 10 year old shooting guns ... what sort of
idiot country allows that!
As for the comment you seem to have disliked - AFAIK British soldiers always
felt happier with US troops in front of them in WW2 for exactly the same
reason - far too trigger happy - shoot first and identify the corpses later!
David
| |
| PonderosaSports.com 2006-01-15, 11:48 pm |
| "FY - You asked - Your header was about Garmin/Navigator?"
I asked (and I thank those that answered) whether or not Navigator v7
provided a corrected location for our local businesses.
I am in the process of upgrading all of our mapping and gps equipment.
Garmin is my favorite. I am hoping that v7 will be the update I need.
I hope Garmin does well by the Brits -
"GARMIN GETS BRITISH BMW AWARD"
Map data is provided by NAVTEQ(TM) -- a world leader in premium ...
This announcement marks an expansion of Garmin's existing relationship
with BMW
http://sev.prnewswire.com/auto/2006...12012006-1.html
My guess is that the Brits will be as unhappy with NAVTEQ and who they
sell the database to as I am.
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-15, 11:48 pm |
| "PonderosaSports.com" < cliff@ponderosasport
s.com> wrote in message
news:1137374301.554528.321590@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "FY - You asked - Your header was about Garmin/Navigator?"
>
> I asked (and I thank those that answered) whether or not Navigator v7
> provided a corrected location for our local businesses.
>
> I am in the process of upgrading all of our mapping and gps equipment.
> Garmin is my favorite. I am hoping that v7 will be the update I need.
>
> I hope Garmin does well by the Brits -
>
> "GARMIN GETS BRITISH BMW AWARD"
>
> Map data is provided by NAVTEQ(TM) -- a world leader in premium ...
> This announcement marks an expansion of Garmin's existing relationship
> with BMW
> http://sev.prnewswire.com/auto/2006...12012006-1.html
>
> My guess is that the Brits will be as unhappy with NAVTEQ and who they
> sell the database to as I am.
Should perhaps point out for American readers that BMW is Bayerische Motoren
Werke AG - a Munich-based company about as British as Sauerkraut! The
media-hype came from Garmin's International Marketing department!
David
| |
|
| Pretty good memory, you have there Dave. Glad you are around to share those
razor sharp first person recollections. Or is AFAIK really NTF?
Hey...you wanna come over and try Yorktown again? Sounds like you need the
exercise.
I think Global sentiment might be against our forgiving *your debts*, as
there are certainly other nations more in need of that.
Wasn't it Churchill that said "neither a borrower nor a lender be"?
No, wait, it was Franklin. ( I believe Churchill was more "send everything
you have now, we'll deal with the terms later") Maybe we should have paid
more attention, but hey, no good deed goes unpunished, right?
"David Lee" < davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:4O- dnTsICorsRVfenZ2dnUV
Z8qWdnZ2d@eclipse.net.uk...
> Steve Landess...
>
> And to set the record straight: the USA was the only country to come out
> of WW2 showing a profit! All your help did NOT come for free and as far
> as I am aware we are expecting to make our last repayment for "lend-lease"
> at the end of this year - 61 years after the end of WW2. So don't come
> the selfless-saviours - if it wasn't for the US not wanting to go it alone
> against the Japanese following Pearl Harbour Britain would have had to
> continue struggling along on her own to the bitter end.
>
> ...and as for the thought of a 10 year old shooting guns ... what sort of
> idiot country allows that!
>
> As for the comment you seem to have disliked - AFAIK British soldiers
> always felt happier with US troops in front of them in WW2 for exactly the
> same reason - far too trigger happy - shoot first and identify the corpses
> later!
>
> David
>
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-16, 5:48 am |
| FY wrote...
> Pretty good memory, you have there Dave. Glad you are around to share
> those razor sharp first person recollections. Or is AFAIK really NTF?
AFAIK means just that - personal recollections of people who were there at
the time (particularly reported following the repeated British deaths at the
hands of US military personnnel in the 2nd Gulf war), which clearly I am not
in a position to verify personally. Unlike many people I don't try to pass
off what a court of law would classify as "hearsay" as verified fact.
However look at the statistics from your own Pentagon regarding only US
personnel killed by their own side (article from Wikipedia):
"Friendly fire in the U.S. military
The armed forces of the United States are widely believed to be more prone
to friendly fire incidents than the military of other nations.
The Pentagon estimates of U.S. friendly fire deaths are:
World War II: 21,000 (16%)
Vietnam war: 8,000 (14%)
Gulf War: 35 (23%)
Invasion of Afghanistan (2002): 4 (13%)"
IThis refers to the 1st Gulf war - where nearly a quarter of all US
fatalities were caused by "own-goals" (according to a CSBA report the
friendly-fire casualty rate rises to 25.6% when non US fatalites are
included)!
There has to be a cultural reason why the US record of "friendly fire"
incidents is consistently so much worse than that of other nations.
David
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
|
"Steve Landess" < steve_landess@hotmai
l.com> wrote in
message news:ndyyf.15920$SD1.2297@tornado.texas.rr.com
[snip]
> I'll stand up for his right to own and sell guns...not to
> mention the right of free speech!
> A law-abiding, gun-owing American,
> Steve Landess
> Austin, Texas
Just out of interest from another UK reader - if you are law abiding, why
do you feel the need to own guns..?
Guns have one purpose and one purpose only - to kill. I can see a
(limited) need for law enforcement officers to carry firearms, in some
(but by no means all) circumstances, but why does an ordinary citizen need
one..?
Ivor
| |
| PonderosaSports.com 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
| I would rather discuss whether or not Ponderosa Sports is located by
Garmin Navigator version 7, but the interest appears otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivor Jones wrote:
"Just out of interest from another UK reader - if you are law abiding,
why
do you feel the need to own guns..? "
My reason is:
"NEED? I prefer - WANT. Because I can. I am a free American living
under the US constitution. Shooting is my hobby. Mechanical
engineering is my profession. I'm sure that if I were a Brit, I would
obey the local code and have a different set of hobbies. If the UK
invades the US and Ivor wins, I will surrender my arms and my pickup.
Picture -
http://www.ponderosasports.com/ 500...a
mmo.htm
One reply might be:
"Just out of interest from another US reader - if you are a law
abiding, moral british subject, what are your thoughts on the mental
picture created on the wedding night by this headline?
"Elton John, 58, and longtime partner David Furnish, 43, were married
Wednesday in England"
"If David Furnish were the name of a sheep, would the reaction change?"
Oh, by the way, does Garmin Navigator version 7 give the gps
coordinates of Ponderosa Sports, 6854 Highway 55, Horseshoe Bend,
Idaho, 83629 (43.9667,-116.1878)
| |
| Seagull 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
| David Lee < davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> There has to be a cultural reason why the US record of "friendly fire"
> incidents is consistently so much worse than that of other nations.
Because they're a lot more accurate?
THat may sound like a cheeky response, but it should make the point that
you can't just draw cause and effect conclusions from correlating data
after the fact.
Cheers,
-+JLS
--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
| |
| no_name 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
| David Lee wrote:
> FY wrote...
>
>
>
> AFAIK means just that - personal recollections of people who were there at
> the time (particularly reported following the repeated British deaths at the
> hands of US military personnnel in the 2nd Gulf war), which clearly I am not
> in a position to verify personally. Unlike many people I don't try to pass
> off what a court of law would classify as "hearsay" as verified fact.
>
> However look at the statistics from your own Pentagon regarding only US
> personnel killed by their own side (article from Wikipedia):
>
> "Friendly fire in the U.S. military
> The armed forces of the United States are widely believed to be more prone
> to friendly fire incidents than the military of other nations.
Less likely to sucessfully cover it up.
| |
| no_name 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Steve Landess" < steve_landess@hotmai
l.com> wrote in
> message news:ndyyf.15920$SD1.2297@tornado.texas.rr.com
>
> [snip]
>
>
>
>
> Just out of interest from another UK reader - if you are law abiding, why
> do you feel the need to own guns..?
>
> Guns have one purpose and one purpose only - to kill. I can see a
> (limited) need for law enforcement officers to carry firearms, in some
> (but by no means all) circumstances, but why does an ordinary citizen need
> one..?
The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was due to memories of how the
British Army abused American colonists prior to and during the American
Revolution. The purpose is to have an organized, armed local citizen
militia for the defense of the nation.
Hasn't necessarily worked out that way ...
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
|
"no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:aaQyf.26164$0h.8962@tornado.southeast.rr.com
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
> The 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution was due to
> memories of how the British Army abused American
> colonists prior to and during the American Revolution.
> The purpose is to have an organized, armed local citizen
> militia for the defense of the nation.
> Hasn't necessarily worked out that way ...
Exactly. Local circumstances have changed somewhat, haven't they..?
Incidentally, I visit the US regularly and have many friends there. None
own or want to own guns.
Ivor
| |
|
|
"PonderosaSports.com" < cliff@ponderosasport
s.com> wrote in message
news:1137429278.062621.204970@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I would rather discuss whether or not Ponderosa Sports is located by
> Garmin Navigator version 7, but the interest appears otherwise.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Why you couldn't ask that in those words in your first post eludes me.
But - no, it is not.
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:431o9uF1lef1eU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Steve Landess" < steve_landess@hotmai
l.com> wrote in
> message news:ndyyf.15920$SD1.2297@tornado.texas.rr.com
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Just out of interest from another UK reader - if you are law abiding, why
> do you feel the need to own guns..?
>
> Guns have one purpose and one purpose only - to kill. I can see a
> (limited) need for law enforcement officers to carry firearms, in some
> (but by no means all) circumstances, but why does an ordinary citizen need
> one..?
Every Wednesday I go trap shooting. We shoot small orange discs as they fly
through the air. In the winter I hunt deer. Yes, the second is classified
as killing, but not people. But no one should have an issue with the 2nd
but vegetarians.
So, there's my 2 reasons. Sport and food.
| |
| Phil Wheeler 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
| Seth wrote:
>
> Every Wednesday I go trap shooting. We shoot small orange discs as they fly
> through the air. In the winter I hunt deer.
An interesting combo. I visualize you hunting stags on the leap :-)
| |
| Colin Wilson 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
| > So, there's my 2 reasons. Sport and food.
If you kill to eat, that`s slightly more forgiveable - although, how
much goes to waste vs how much it would cost in a supermarket / deli ?
As for sport, I would only class killing animals sport if they had the
same weaponry at their disposal - and were able to use it...
--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:vQSyf.3891$OU3.2977@news01.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:431o9uF1lef1eU1
@individual.net...
>
> Every Wednesday I go trap shooting. We shoot small
> orange discs as they fly through the air. In the winter
> I hunt deer. Yes, the second is classified as killing,
> but not people. But no one should have an issue with the
> 2nd but vegetarians.
> So, there's my 2 reasons. Sport and food.
I asked why anyone would *need* a gun, not why they *want* one.
It isn't necessary. There are other pastimes. I enjoy motorcycling and
amateur radio, for example. I feel no need to shoot anything, living or
otherwise.
Ivor
| |
| Phil Wheeler 2006-01-16, 5:49 pm |
| Colin Wilson wrote:
>
>
> If you kill to eat, that`s slightly more forgiveable - although, how
> much goes to waste vs how much it would cost in a supermarket / deli
> ?
>
Hopefully, he keeps this
> Every Wednesday I go trap shooting. We shoot small orange discs as
> they fly through the air. In the winter I hunt deer.
properly organiced, unless the orange disks come in flavors ;-)
| |
| no_name 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
| PonderosaSports.com wrote:
> I would rather discuss whether or not Ponderosa Sports is located by
> Garmin Navigator version 7, but the interest appears otherwise.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Just out of interest from another UK reader - if you are law abiding,
> why
> do you feel the need to own guns..? "
>
> My reason is:
> "NEED? I prefer - WANT. Because I can. I am a free American living
> under the US constitution. Shooting is my hobby. Mechanical
> engineering is my profession. I'm sure that if I were a Brit, I would
> obey the local code and have a different set of hobbies. If the UK
> invades the US and Ivor wins, I will surrender my arms and my pickup.
> Picture -
> http://www.ponderosasports.com/ 500...a
mmo.htm
Interestin' picture. I'm not sure I voted for anyone in 2004. The army
had a problem gettin' our absentee ballots to us in Iraq in a timely manner.
> One reply might be:
> "Just out of interest from another US reader - if you are a law
> abiding, moral british subject, what are your thoughts on the mental
> picture created on the wedding night by this headline?
>
> "Elton John, 58, and longtime partner David Furnish, 43, were married
> Wednesday in England"
>
> "If David Furnish were the name of a sheep, would the reaction change?"
>
If it don't mean less pussy for me why should I give a shit?
> Oh, by the way, does Garmin Navigator version 7 give the gps
> coordinates of Ponderosa Sports, 6854 Highway 55, Horseshoe Bend,
> Idaho, 83629 (43.9667,-116.1878)
>
Again, if it don't mean ...
| |
|
| "Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:rpUyf.787$eV4.716@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>
>
> properly organiced, unless the orange disks come in flavors ;-)
Too crunchy, but very good for the teeth...
| |
|
| "Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 1e36203d79dd55339897
ce@news.individual.net...
>
> If you kill to eat, that`s slightly more forgiveable - although, how
> much goes to waste vs how much it would cost in a supermarket / deli ?
Trap=sport, hunting=food. No hunting of animals for sport. No waste, we
(my hunting buddies and I) do all the butchering ourselves. We use it all.
Well, a typical season license costs $60. $1 per bullet (if using 30-06 in
rifle counties) or about $.75 when using my Muzzleloader. That will yeild
at least 30lbs of meat. Do the math for the cost vs. deli/supermarket.
> As for sport, I would only class killing animals sport if they had the
> same weaponry at their disposal - and were able to use it...
As said above, I do not hunt for sport.
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:432i6eF1k4qi5U1
@individual.net...
>
> I asked why anyone would *need* a gun, not why they *want* one.
Ahh, changing the boundaries of the question? I like to hunt. I want to
hunt. To hunt, one *needs* a weapon. I am currently not licensed to hunt
with a bow. That leaves firearm or bare hands. I can't run fast enough to
get close enough to kill a deer with my bare hands. Therefore I *need* a
gun.
> It isn't necessary. There are other pastimes. I enjoy motorcycling and
> amateur radio, for example. I feel no need to shoot anything, living or
> otherwise.
I also motorcycle and have other hobbies as well. Don't like my hobbies
that include firearms, too damn bad. Who are you to determine what is
necessary or not? One could argue that amateur radio and motorcycling "as a
hobby" are unnecessary as they use diminishing resources (i.e. power). Your
hobbies when compared to other less resource wasting hobbies are therefore
not necessary.
| |
| Seagull 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> I asked why anyone would *need* a gun, not why they *want* one.
>
> It isn't necessary.
Why would anyone *need* a GPS?
I don't need an answer. I'm just trying to steer us back on topic. ;)
Cheers,
-+JLS
--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
| Seth wrote...
> Every Wednesday I go trap shooting. We shoot small orange discs as they
> fly through the air. In the winter I hunt deer. Yes, the second is
> classified as killing, but not people. But no one should have an issue
> with the 2nd but vegetarians.
>
> So, there's my 2 reasons. Sport and food.
Both perfectly valid reasons for owning firearms - as much in the UK as in
the USA. However there is a world of difference between owning a shotgun
and a hunting rifle, which are designed for those purposes, and handguns,
assault rifles and machine guns which are totally unsuitable for any other
purpose except killing people. I can see no reason at all why a similar
sensible distinction should not be made in the USA and I strongly suspect
that it would have the backing of the majority of the population.
I wouldn't advocate going quite as far as the British parliament though - in
their haste to appease puplic opinion after a couple of unpleasant school
shootings they completely banned all licenced handguns including those used
for Olympic pistol shooting, which has made it illegal to practice one of
the sports in which we traditionally had the best chance of winning gold
medals!
David
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
|
"Seagull" <seagull@aracnet.com> wrote in message
news:dqh5lj02lbu@ene
ws4.newsguy.com
> Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> Why would anyone *need* a GPS?
>
>
> I don't need an answer. I'm just trying to steer us back
> on topic. ;)
I'll do it anyway ;-)
Nobody *needs* a GPS, true. But owning one doesn't put people's lives at
risk, unless you drop it on someone from a great height..!
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:43Vyf.3903$OU3.3406@news01.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:432i6eF1k4qi5U1
@individual.net...
>
> Ahh, changing the boundaries of the question? I like to
> hunt. I want to hunt. To hunt, one *needs* a weapon. I
> am currently not licensed to hunt with a bow. That
> leaves firearm or bare hands. I can't run fast enough to
> get close enough to kill a deer with my bare hands. Therefore I *need* a
> gun.
>
> I also motorcycle and have other hobbies as well. Don't
> like my hobbies that include firearms, too damn bad. Who
> are you to determine what is necessary or not? One could
> argue that amateur radio and motorcycling "as a hobby"
> are unnecessary as they use diminishing resources (i.e.
> power). Your hobbies when compared to other less
> resource wasting hobbies are therefore not necessary.
My hobbies don't put people's lives at risk. Guns do.
Ivor
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote...
> I asked why anyone would *need* a gun, not why they *want* one.
>
> It isn't necessary. There are other pastimes. I enjoy motorcycling and
> amateur radio, for example. I feel no need to shoot anything, living or
> otherwise.
I'm afraid you are totally wrong - even in the UK. The UK deer population
is already way above sustainable levels - for example in Herefordshire it is
already up to 35 deer to an acre. Unfortunately, too many deer in an area
cause a lot of problems: stripping the bark from trees for food, browsing
the edges of woods, where most birds nest and fraying (caused by males
rubbing their antlers on the trunks of trees). They also graze on the
wildflowers that other species use and young trees that replace aging trees
and browse off the regrowth from coppice stools preventing the natural
regeneration of traditional woodland management. Whilst the numbers of deer
will continue to increase if not checked eventually their population will
collapse also once they have exhausted their own natural resources ,so deer
contol is in the best interests of the deer population as well. It is
crucially important to maintain sustainability - particularly in a country
as small as ours with limited habitat for all our species - and this means
that no one species should have an impact that is to the detriment of other
species (and ideally that should include ourselves).
The only sensible and humane way to control the problem is by deer stalking
with rifles and the Deer Initiative in the UK is carrying out a campaign to
bring the hunting fraternity onside and to promote the consumption of
Venison as a healthier and more humanely produced alternative to beef
products. Just compare the life style of a beef cow and a fallow deer - the
cow is likely to wind up being shipped hundreds of miles in a crowded lorry
to an abbatoir and have to wait for hours in unpleasant surroundings before
being slaughtered, whereas the deer spends its life wandering happily
through woodland and wood pasture until it suddenly and unexpectedly is
brought down by a rifle bullet in the brain from a trained marksman - and
there are laws n the UK specifying the minimum calibre of rifle you are
permitted to use in order to maximise the probability od a clean kill. I
know which of the two scenarios I am less comfortable with!
Unfortunately your attitude is alllied to the belief that milk comes in
bottles and bacon in plastic packaging! Just because you don't wish to do
it doesn't mean that it isn't necessary.
There is a world of difference between these legitimate reasons for the
owning and usage of firearms and the American maniacs who feel that they
need to be armed with serious anti-personnel weaponry for reasons of
paranoia and psychosis. By blurring the distinction we will simply alienate
the responsible and harmless owners of sporting and hunting firearms.
David
| |
|
|
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:432n8pF1l00osU1
@individual.net...
>
>
> I'll do it anyway ;-)
>
> Nobody *needs* a GPS, true. But owning one doesn't put people's lives at
> risk, unless you drop it on someone from a great height..!
Owning a gun doesn't put people's lives at risk either. Mis-using a gun
does.
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:432nb2F1kpf3fU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:43Vyf.3903$OU3.3406@news01.roc.ny
>
> My hobbies don't put people's lives at risk. Guns do.
Motorcycling does put people's lives at risk. Pedestrians are killed by
reckless motorcyclists. People are also killed by reckless gun users. Note
the key word here is "reckless".
| |
| Seagull 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote:
>
> Nobody *needs* a GPS, true. But owning one doesn't put people's lives at
> risk, unless you drop it on someone from a great height..!
I'd like to see the tracklog for that. Better spring for a model with
an altimeter, though. You want to make sure you get good vertical data.
Cheers,
-+JLS
--
\ carpe cavy!
seagull @ aracnet.com \
http://www.aracnet.com/~seagull/ \ (seize the guinea pig!)
| |
|
| "David Lee" < davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:u4CdncSeuaU-s1HeRVnytA@eclipse.net.uk...
> Ivor Jones wrote...
>
> I'm afraid you are totally wrong - even in the UK. The UK deer population
> is already way above sustainable levels - for example in Herefordshire it
> is already up to 35 deer to an acre. Unfortunately, too many deer in an
> area cause a lot of problems: stripping the bark from trees for food,
> browsing the edges of woods, where most birds nest and fraying (caused by
> males rubbing their antlers on the trunks of trees). They also graze on
> the wildflowers that other species use and young trees that replace aging
> trees and browse off the regrowth from coppice stools preventing the
> natural regeneration of traditional woodland management. Whilst the
> numbers of deer will continue to increase if not checked eventually their
> population will collapse also once they have exhausted their own natural
> resources ,so deer contol is in the best interests of the deer population
> as well. It is crucially important to maintain sustainability -
> particularly in a country as small as ours with limited habitat for all
> our species - and this means that no one species should have an impact
> that is to the detriment of other species (and ideally that should include
> ourselves).
Don't forget all the motorcyclists (like Ivor) and motorists that are put at
risk and killed due to deer over population. Too many deer on a parcel of
land forces them to wander for food. Wander right into traffic.
| |
|
| "David Lee" < davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:wbCdnTc9R79FglH
enZ2dnUVZ8qKdnZ2d@ec
lipse.net.uk...
> Seth wrote...
>
> Both perfectly valid reasons for owning firearms - as much in the UK as in
> the USA. However there is a world of difference between owning a shotgun
> and a hunting rifle, which are designed for those purposes, and handguns,
> assault rifles and machine guns which are totally unsuitable for any other
> purpose except killing people. I can see no reason at all why a similar
> sensible distinction should not be made in the USA and I strongly suspect
> that it would have the backing of the majority of the population.
I agree with you mostly. Another reason some people own firearms is mere
target shooting. I used to target shoot, but bored of it.
I agree that certain guns are "over board". Like the .50 cal monster
feature on the web page that sparked this discussion. I have no desire to
own one like that nor have a need for one. My only reservation in regards
to setting limits on the types of guns that are acceptable is that once it
starts it may not stop. I have a semi-automatic 9mm rifle that only holds 4
rounds. That is not a weapon of mass carnage. But it is a semi, and as the
"definition" of assault rifle morphs, it could become illegal. My .22 is a
weapon that I would fear more in the wrong hands as it is very acurate, even
at distance, and so quiet it could be used in near-urban environments nearly
undetectably as a sniper rifle. Which is more dangerous then?
Neither extreme is the correct one (in my opnion), but until we have correct
legislation, one must be careful of the legislation we do have.
For lack of a better phrase, our gun-control legislation is attempting to
solve the issue using a shotgun approach.
> I wouldn't advocate going quite as far as the British parliament though -
> in their haste to appease puplic opinion after a couple of unpleasant
> school shootings they completely banned all licenced handguns including
> those used for Olympic pistol shooting, which has made it illegal to
> practice one of the sports in which we traditionally had the best chance
> of winning gold medals!
A prime example of legislation being mis-used and mis-applied.
| |
| no_name 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> My hobbies don't put people's lives at risk. Guns do.
Not exactly. Guns in the hands of idiots put people at risk.
| |
| no_name 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> Nobody *needs* a GPS, true. But owning one doesn't put people's lives at
> risk
The 507th Maintenance Co might disagree.
| |
| Jack Erbes 2006-01-16, 11:48 pm |
| no_name wrote:
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> Not exactly. Guns in the hands of idiots put people at risk.
Neither one of you guys has it right.
No one has ever been killed by a gun in the history of mankind.
But many people have been killed by people with guns.
Look at it like you would an irresponsible driver that is responsible
for the death of a fellow human. Do they try to outlaw cars? No! Or do
they try to punish the driver? Right!
Now you got it!
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)
| |
| Phil Wheeler 2006-01-17, 5:48 am |
| Jack Erbes wrote:
> no_name wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Neither one of you guys has it right.
>
> No one has ever been killed by a gun in the history of mankind.
>
Jack, you are forgetting the "it went off by accident while I was
cleaning it" story :-)
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:48 am |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:3YWyf.3926$OU3.87@news01.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:432n8pF1l00osU1
@individual.net...
>
> Owning a gun doesn't put people's lives at risk either. Mis-using a gun
> does.
But owning one gives the opportunity and maybe the temptation to misuse.
Don't have a gun, can't kill people with it.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:48 am |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:4YWyf.3927$OU3.3850@news01.roc.ny
[snip]
> Motorcycling does put people's lives at risk. Pedestrians are killed by
> reckless motorcyclists. People
> are also killed by reckless gun users. Note the key word
> here is "reckless".
There is a lot less chance of that with a motorcycle than with a gun
though.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:48 am |
|
"no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:_kXyf.26998$0h.5374@tornado.southeast.rr.com
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> Not exactly. Guns in the hands of idiots put people at
> risk.
Exactly. So why give them the opportunity..?
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:48 am |
|
"Jack Erbes" <jackerbes@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:id2dnYs50aoz-1HeRVn-gQ@adelphia.com
> no_name wrote:
>
>
> Neither one of you guys has it right.
>
> No one has ever been killed by a gun in the history of
> mankind.
> But many people have been killed by people with guns.
>
> Look at it like you would an irresponsible driver that is
> responsible for the death of a fellow human. Do they try
> to outlaw cars? No! Or do they try to punish the driver?
> Right!
> Now you got it!
A car has a valid purpose other than to kill. An assault rifle has no
other purpose.
Now you got it..!
Ivor
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-17, 5:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote...
> A car has a valid purpose other than to kill. An assault rifle has no
> other purpose.
>
> Now you got it..!
.... and hopefully so have you, Ivor.
Exactly the same distinction exists between a shotgun or hunting rifle and
an assault rifle or machine gun.
David
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-17, 5:48 pm |
|
Seth wrote...
> Don't forget all the motorcyclists (like Ivor) and motorists that are put
> at risk and killed due to deer over population. Too many deer on a parcel
> of land forces them to wander for food. Wander right into traffic.
I could have mentioned that but my post was already over-long and OT!
Hovever since you mention it - there are 30,000 - 50,000 deer killed
annually on British roads with up to 20 human casualties in deer-related
accidents.
David
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:48 pm |
|
"David Lee"
< davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:xN2dncVIud8EWVH
eRVnyhQ@eclipse.net.uk
> Ivor Jones wrote...
>
> ... and hopefully so have you, Ivor.
>
> Exactly the same distinction exists between a shotgun or
> hunting rifle and an assault rifle or machine gun.
Yet there are those out there who seek to continue to be allowed to own
such weapons.
Ivor
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:433rj0F1ksncsU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:3YWyf.3926$OU3.87@news01.roc.ny
>
> But owning one gives the opportunity and maybe the temptation to misuse.
> Don't have a gun, can't kill people with it.
Temptation? What kind of a whack are you that you need to remove temptation
inorder to not do the wrong thing? Are you projecting your self-control
issues on the rest of us.
Temptation is not an issue for me. I have no desire to point my weapon at
anybody.
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:433rmfF1loijnU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4YWyf.3927$OU3.3850@news01.roc.ny
>
> [snip]
>
>
> There is a lot less chance of that with a motorcycle than with a gun
> though.
No. My motorcycle spends a lot more time near the un-suspecting public than
my gun does.
Once again, the key word is reckless. People can also be killed if I get
reckless with a butter knife.
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:433rnqF1lcrv0U1
@individual.net...
>
> "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
> news:_kXyf.26998$0h.5374@tornado.southeast.rr.com
>
> Exactly. So why give them the opportunity..?
Cause that is the idiot, not the gun. Control the idiots and there is no
issue. I never said one should be allowed to buy a gun in a toy store. In
many places to have a gun one must have a permit and register the weapon.
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-17, 5:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote...
[color=darkred]
> Yet there are those out there who seek to continue to be allowed to own
> such weapons.
....and we agree that they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Military weaponry
should be subject to a total prohibition and ownership of sporting and
hunting firearms strictly controlled, just as it is here in the UK (although
perhaps this should be applied with a bit more intelligent forethought than
came from our own parliament's knee-jerk reactions!) I am certain that the
majority of reasonable US citizens would be fully happy with such
legislation.
David
| |
| Colin Wilson 2006-01-17, 5:48 pm |
| > Hovever since you mention it - there are 30,000 - 50,000 deer killed
> annually on British roads with up to 20 human casualties in deer-related
> accidents.
That sounds like an awful lot considering I live in the UK and i`ve
never heard a single one reported yet.
Could you please state a source for these numbers ?
--
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-17, 5:48 pm |
|
"Colin Wilson" <void@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG. 1e3718326495329f9897
d1@news.individual.net...
>
> That sounds like an awful lot considering I live in the UK and i`ve
> never heard a single one reported yet.
>
> Could you please state a source for these numbers ?
Presentation by Mr Patrick Faulker of the Deer Initiative to the AGM of
"Herefordshire Action for Mammals" 11th October 2005.
Looking more closely 30,000 is an often quoted figure dating from the mid
'90s and the figure of 20 human casualties seems to mean fatalities since
the total number of annual deer related human injuries is elsewhere quoted
as 250.
http://www.thedeerinitiative.co.uk
http://deercollisions.co.uk/pages/pr_sound_ideer.html
Press release: "Each year, nationally, there are more than 30,000 deer
related road traffic collisions, resulting in 250 human injuries and £10.5
million worth of damage."
http://deercollisions.co.uk/ftp/ De...20
05.pdf
Detailed document.
David
| |
| tvnav.com 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
|
"Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:433rp8F1lpqn4U1
@individual.net...
>
>
> "Jack Erbes" <jackerbes@adelphia.net> wrote in message
> news:id2dnYs50aoz-1HeRVn-gQ@adelphia.com
>
> A car has a valid purpose other than to kill. An assault rifle has no
> other purpose.
BS!!!! I have a rifle that I have target practiced with for recreation.
I have never, nor do I intend to ever kill someone with it. Just like my
car.....I use it to get me different places. I have never, nor do I intend
to ever kill someone with it but there's a LOT more of a chance that I will
kill someone with my car than with my rifle. I have video taped news for 20
years and I believe that I've only been on two locations where someone was
killed by a gun and both of those were self inflicted. I've been to
countless vehicle accidents where someone was killed.
BTW, what does this subject have to do with GPS's?
--
Darrel Goheen
GPS@tvnav.com
http://www.tvnav.com
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:xK5zf.3963$OU3.2517@news01.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:433rj0F1ksncsU1
@individual.net...
[snip]
>
> Temptation? What kind of a whack are you that you need
> to remove temptation inorder to not do the wrong thing? Are you
> projecting your self-control issues on the rest
> of us.
The very fact that you call me a "whack" is indicative of much. What do
you call someone who really disagrees with you..?
> Temptation is not an issue for me. I have no desire to
> point my weapon at anybody.
I'm very glad to hear it. Others however do not have your admirable self
control, hence the need to remove temptation.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:ML5zf.3964$OU3.1824@news01.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:433rmfF1loijnU1
@individual.net...
>
> No. My motorcycle spends a lot more time near the
> un-suspecting public than my gun does.
>
> Once again, the key word is reckless. People can also be
> killed if I get reckless with a butter knife.
And you think I'd trust you with a gun when you're capable of making
remarks like that..?
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:TN5zf.3965$OU3.3820@news01.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:433rnqF1lcrv0U1
@individual.net...
>
> Cause that is the idiot, not the gun. Control the idiots
> and there is no issue. I never said one should be
> allowed to buy a gun in a toy store. In many places to
> have a gun one must have a permit and register the
> weapon.
And the really determined will really take notice of that one. You have to
have a licence to drive a car, but unlicensed and uninsured drivers are a
real problem all over the UK and I suspect the US as well.
Ivor
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:434prsF1l19cvU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xK5zf.3963$OU3.2517@news01.roc.ny
>
> [snip]
>
>
> The very fact that you call me a "whack" is indicative of much. What do
> you call someone who really disagrees with you..?
No, it's indicative of your inference that temptation is an issue with
ordinary citizens like you or me. If I wanted to get into insult flinging,
whack wouldn't have been the word of choice.
>
> I'm very glad to hear it. Others however do not have your admirable self
> control, hence the need to remove temptation.
Hence control the people with self-control issues, not the inanimate object
that is incapable of doing anything heinous just sitting there by itself. I
have self-control, therefore do not need someone else to control me or my
firearm.
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:434ptuF1kvct8U1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ML5zf.3964$OU3.1824@news01.roc.ny
>
> And you think I'd trust you with a gun when you're capable of making
> remarks like that..?
Sure. You seem to think anybody is dangerous just because of possession of
an inanimate object. I've owned butter knives and firearms for many years
with no incidents. Therefore I have proven I can be trusted with such
devices.
Let me be clear, and do try to follow. It's not the object (i.e. gun,
butter knife, dinner roll), but the recklessness of the person is the issue.
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:434q51F1m6vbfU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:TN5zf.3965$OU3.3820@news01.roc.ny
>
> And the really determined will really take notice of that one. You have to
> have a licence to drive a car, but unlicensed and uninsured drivers are a
> real problem all over the UK and I suspect the US as well.
But (at least in the US) you don't have to have a license to buy a car. You
do have to have license to buy a firearm. In NY (outside the 5 boroughs of
NYC), a long rifle or shotgun requires the filling out of an FFL and state
provided ID. A handgun requires a specific handgun permit. You can't just
walk in and buy a firearm with cash and no ID. You can do that with a car.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:guazf.3992$OU3.3705@news01.roc.ny
[snip]
> Let me be clear, and do try to follow. It's not the
> object (i.e. gun, butter knife, dinner roll), but the
> recklessness of the person is the issue.
True. But the relative ease with which firearms are obtainable in the US
compared to the UK also indicates much when considering the number of
deaths caused by guns in each country. Make it easy for a reckless person
to obtain a gun and they *will* use it. Sooner or later.
Ivor
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:434t2mF1lskubU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:guazf.3992$OU3.3705@news01.roc.ny
>
> [snip]
>
>
> True. But the relative ease with which firearms are obtainable in the US
> compared to the UK also indicates much when considering the number of
> deaths caused by guns in each country. Make it easy for a reckless person
> to obtain a gun and they *will* use it. Sooner or later.
Once again, control the reckless people and leave the law abiding citizens
alone.
| |
| no_name 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
| Jack Erbes wrote:
> no_name wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Neither one of you guys has it right.
>
> No one has ever been killed by a gun in the history of mankind.
>
> But many people have been killed by people with guns.
>
> Look at it like you would an irresponsible driver that is responsible
> for the death of a fellow human. Do they try to outlaw cars? No! Or do
> they try to punish the driver? Right!
>
> Now you got it!
>
> Jack
>
What I just said ... cars don't kill people, idiots driving cars kill
people.
Guns in the hands of idiots put people at risk; not guns --- guns in the
hands of idiots.
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:usbzf.1015$wk5.558@news02.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:434t2mF1lskubU1
@individual.net...
>
> Once again, control the reckless people and leave the law
> abiding citizens alone.
How do you propose this is done..? Mind control..?
I say again, law abiding citizens have no requirement for weaponry.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
|
"no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:s%czf.19559$iQ.19179@tornado.southeast.rr.com
> Jack Erbes wrote:
>
>
> What I just said ... cars don't kill people, idiots
> driving cars kill people.
>
> Guns in the hands of idiots put people at risk; not guns
> --- guns in the hands of idiots.
And just how do you stop the idiots from getting their hands on them..?
Not by having gun shops on every street corner, that's a fact.
Take a little time to consider the difference in gun related deaths in the
UK and US.
Ivor
| |
| no_name 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "David Lee"
> < davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:xN2dncVIud8EWVH
eRVnyhQ@eclipse.net.uk
>
>
>
> Yet there are those out there who seek to continue to be allowed to own
> such weapons.
>
> Ivor
>
>
If you want to be anal about it, under the Second Amendment only
posession of military weapons, i.e. assault weapons, is protected. Goes
back to that "well regulated militia".
| |
| no_name 2006-01-17, 5:49 pm |
| Phil Wheeler wrote:
> Jack Erbes wrote:
>
>
> Jack, you are forgetting the "it went off by accident while I was
> cleaning it" story :-)
Or the guy who blew his own brains out doing a Curt Kobain imitation.
Most frequent last words for a redneck are "Hey y'all, watch this!"
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:435595F1evkb0U1
@individual.net...
>
> How do you propose this is done..? Mind control..?
I don't know. If I did, I would be in politics working on it. Your shotgun
approach is not the answer as well as the criminals will always find a way
to obtain their weponary, legal or not.
> I say again, law abiding citizens have no requirement for weaponry.
So say you. I require it to hunt and trap shoot. A butter knife just will
not do.
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:4355brF1ln58eU1
@individual.net...
>
> "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
> news:s%czf.19559$iQ.19179@tornado.southeast.rr.com
>
> And just how do you stop the idiots from getting their hands on them..?
> Not by having gun shops on every street corner, that's a fact.
>
> Take a little time to consider the difference in gun related deaths in the
> UK and US.
If I cared about the difference, I suppose I would move to the UK. I prefer
my freedoms to pursue hobbies I like, and as long as I don't hurt anybody
while doing so, why should I do without?
| |
| no_name 2006-01-17, 11:48 pm |
| Seth wrote:
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:433rj0F1ksncsU1
@individual.net...
>
>
>
> Temptation? What kind of a whack are you that you need to remove temptation
> inorder to not do the wrong thing? Are you projecting your self-control
> issues on the rest of us.
>
Matthew 6:13
| |
|
| "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:odezf.19564$iQ.4589@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
> Seth wrote:
>
>
> Matthew 6:13
Not being a study of the bible, I'm afraid the reference is lost on me.
Please elaborate.
| |
| Colin Wilson 2006-01-17, 11:48 pm |
| > > Could you please state a source for these numbers ?
<snip>
Interesting - I didn`t realise it was such a problem.
There seems to be a lot of "approximately" in the figures given in any=20
docs, but this one seems to pin it down more than most...
http://www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/c...r/rta-costs.pdf
"Estimates can therefore only be given as rather wide ranges or as=20
very approximate figures. Thus the annual number of deer RTAs probably=20
lies within the range 20,000 =3D3F 60,000 for the UK as a whole, or 12,500=
=20
=3D3F 54,000 for England. The costs of damage caused as a result of these=
=20
accidents may amount to around =A310.5 million per annum in England=20
alone."
and...
"The number of human fatalities caused each year is likely to be in=20
the range 12 =3D3F 36 for the UK (7 =3D3F 32 in England) and injuries in th=
e=20
range 1200 =3D3F 3600 (750 =3D3F 3200 in England). Records from the early=
=20
1990s suggest that the actual number of fatalities is typically around=20
14 =3D3F 15 per annum in the UK as a whole."
--=20
Please add the word "newsgroup" in the subject line of personal emails
**** My email address includes "ngspamtrap" and "@btinternet.com" ****
| |
| Jack Erbes 2006-01-17, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> Take a little time to consider the difference in gun related deaths in the
> UK and US.
Guns are an essential part of the American political system and way of
life. We used them to overthrow one system and allowed ourselves to
keep them in case we ever need to do that again. I'm thinking it is
almost time to repeat the process and I'm willing to grant ourselves the
same right again.
It's interesting that the politicians are the ones that seem to make the
most noise about the need for gun control. People like Hitler and
Dianne Feinstein (I'm a former Californian).
Jack
--
Jack Erbes in Ellsworth, Maine, USA (jackerbes at adelphia dot net)
(also receiving email at jacker at midmaine dot com)
| |
| subdude 2006-01-18, 5:48 pm |
| On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 19:47:44 -0500, Jack Erbes
<jackerbes@adelphia.net> graced us with:
>Ivor Jones wrote:
>
>
>Guns are an essential part of the American political system and way of
>life. We used them to overthrow one system and allowed ourselves to
>keep them in case we ever need to do that again. I'm thinking it is
>almost time to repeat the process and I'm willing to grant ourselves the
>same right again.
>
>It's interesting that the politicians are the ones that seem to make the
>most noise about the need for gun control. People like Hitler and
>Dianne Feinstein (I'm a former Californian).
>
>Jack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-18, 11:48 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:8Gdzf.1027$wk5.142@news02.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:435595F1evkb0U1
@individual.net...
>
> I don't know. If I did, I would be in politics working
> on it. Your shotgun approach is not the answer as well
> as the criminals will always find a way to obtain their
> weponary, legal or not.
>
> So say you. I require it to hunt and trap shoot. A
> butter knife just will not do.
Well that just shows the type of person you are. I see I am wasting my
time here. I am just glad I don't live within 5000 miles of you and your
kind.
Ivor
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-18, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote...
>
> Well that just shows the type of person you are. I see I am wasting my
> time here. I am just glad I don't live within 5000 miles of you and your
> kind.
Obviously you have never cooked and eaten venison...!
David
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:437v8uF1mgf6hU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8Gdzf.1027$wk5.142@news02.roc.ny
>
> Well that just shows the type of person you are. I see I am wasting my
> time here. I am just glad I don't live within 5000 miles of you and your
> kind.
And exactly what does that mean? Because you don't agree with me and my
views on hunting it's a good thing you are 5000 miles away. hate to burst
your bubble, but I'll bet you have other hunters much closer than 5000 miles
away from where you live. Heck, I'll bet you even have some within 10
miles. Better move to somewhere distant, hunters are all over the place.
| |
| no_name 2006-01-18, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> And just how do you stop the idiots from getting their hands on them..?
> Not by having gun shops on every street corner, that's a fact.
>
> Take a little time to consider the difference in gun related deaths in the
> UK and US.
>
> Ivor
>
>
Take also a little time and consider the differences in the forms of
government. In the US, a little thing called the US Constitution still
occasionally applies.
And the Second Amendment, and how it is interpreted by the courts in
determining the constitutionality of gun laws does sometimes make it a
little problematical to "stop idiots from getting their hands on them".
| |
| no_name 2006-01-18, 11:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8Gdzf.1027$wk5.142@news02.roc.ny
>
>
>
> Well that just shows the type of person you are. I see I am wasting my
> time here. I am just glad I don't live within 5000 miles of you and your
> kind.
>
> Ivor
>
>
Perhaps not so glad as we are for the same thing.
| |
| no_name 2006-01-18, 11:48 pm |
| Seth wrote:
> "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
> news:odezf.19564$iQ.4589@tornado.southeast.rr.com...
>
>
>
> Not being a study of the bible, I'm afraid the reference is lost on me.
> Please elaborate.
>
>
6:13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil:
... although some translations render it "deliver us from the evil one."
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-19, 5:48 pm |
|
"David Lee"
< davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:- c6dnUY6ZZ7CVVPeRVny0
Q@eclipse.net.uk
> Ivor Jones wrote...
>
> Obviously you have never cooked and eaten venison...!
No, nor would I want to. I know what goes into its production.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-19, 5:48 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:UcCzf.40$qg.27@news01.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:437v8uF1mgf6hU1
@individual.net...
[snip]
>
> And exactly what does that mean?
Exactly what it says.
> Because you don't agree
> with me and my views on hunting it's a good thing you are
> 5000 miles away. hate to burst your bubble, but I'll bet
> you have other hunters much closer than 5000 miles away
> from where you live. Heck, I'll bet you even have some
> within 10 miles. Better move to somewhere distant,
> hunters are all over the place.
That doesn't make it right.
Ivor
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-19, 5:48 pm |
|
"no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in message
news:9xCzf.20348$iQ.17596@tornado.southeast.rr.com
[snip]
> And the Second Amendment, and how it is interpreted by
> the courts in determining the constitutionality of gun
> laws does sometimes make it a little problematical to
> "stop idiots from getting their hands on them".
As I've said before, laws can and should sometimes be changed. They should
not be carved in stone for all time. Circumstances change, and the
situations that caused the formation of a law may not still be in place
200 years or whatever later.
The 2nd Amendment is just that, an amendment. Perhaps it's time to amend
the amendment..?
Ivor
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:439qd1F1mbgjiU1
@individual.net...
>
> "Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:UcCzf.40$qg.27@news01.roc.ny
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Exactly what it says.
The type of person that I am is a meat eating law abiding citizen. Which
part don't you want within 5000 miles of you? The "meat eating"law abiding"
part?
>
> That doesn't make it right.
"Meat eaters" or "law abiding citizens" within 5000 miles? Which part is
wrong?
| |
|
| "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
news:439qanF1lqddoU1
@individual.net...
>
> "David Lee"
> < davidlee_malvern@don
t.use.this.bit.hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:- c6dnUY6ZZ7CVVPeRVny0
Q@eclipse.net.uk
>
> No, nor would I want to. I know what goes into its production.
What goes into it's production? I know my venison is 100% natural. No
filler or preservatives. I know the animal from wild to dinner plate.
| |
| David Lee 2006-01-19, 5:48 pm |
| Ivor Jones wrote:
> No, nor would I want to. I know what goes into its production.
I don't know what you mean by that. If you are a strict vegetarian then
fair enough - otherwise it's a much more humane product than beef. The deer
lives a stress-free free-range life with an infinitely more humane
slaughtering process (at least in the UK where there are strict regulations
regarding permitted weapons, to ensure maximum probability of a clean kill).
One second the deer is happily grazing, totally unaware of what is about to
happen - the next it's dead. Never transported miles in poor conditions and
never left penned up in a yard for hours or days awaiting its turn in the
abbatoir.
You should always make sure that a game dealer can tell you where venison
came from and what species it is. All deer taste very different so you will
want to know what you have eaten if you find something you particularly
like. Also you should go for locally culled deer (most likely to be young
does) rather than venison shot for sport in Scotland, since the tendency is
for stalkers of Red Deer to go for something with big antlers as a trophy,
in which case it is likely to be an old breeding stag shot full of
testosterone and that hasn't eaten for weeks and so it will be tough and
taste awful!
David
| |
| Ivor Jones 2006-01-19, 5:48 pm |
|
"Seth" < seth_lermanNOSPAM@ho
tmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZQOzf.79$qg.64@news01.roc.ny
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@despammed.invalid> wrote in message
> news:439qd1F1mbgjiU1
@individual.net...
[snip]
>
> "Meat eaters" or "law abidin | |