Hunters Shot Down Google Fiber 1141
aesoteric writes "Google has revealed that aerial fiber links to its data center in Oregon were 'regularly' shot down by hunters, forcing the company to put its cables underground. Hunters were reportedly trying to hit insulators on electricity distribution poles, which also hosted aerially-deployed fiber connected to Google's $600 million data center in The Dalles. 'I have yet to see them actually hit the insulator, but they regularly shoot down the fiber,' Google's network engineering manager Vijay Gill told a conference in Australia. 'Every November when hunting season starts invariably we know that the fiber will be shot down, so much so that we are now building an underground path [for it].'"
Hunters and responsibility (Score:3, Informative)
From my observations, though, for every 1 responsible hunter there seem to be 10 irresponsible.
15 years ago, I did a stint as a volunteer park warden for 6 months. I noted the following:
- Bringing shot deer down to the nearest clearing, often walking tracks, partially butchering the animal and leaving the rest to rot on the track.
- Pot shots and damage to any and all infrastructure.
- "Boredom Kills" - usually birds shot with high powered rifles.
- Hunting dogs left to roam, sometimes till a following weekend, when the hunter would come back.
- Creepy comments to day hikers such as "I saw you long ago from across the valley, i saw you in my scope".
15 years later and hunters will still defend their pass time with the fervor of a rabid PETA campaigner, or Muslim cleric. Saving the world you know. Thinning pests, and over population of grazing animals...
Re:Pretty common. (Score:3, Informative)
You think that's bad? In Germany, manhole covers and guard rails are vanishing...but the best one was when they stole 40 tons of rails...yes, the ones where trains run on.
On a sidenote, there are quiet a few stories about that over at the Darwin Awards.
Re:Hunters and responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
All the above sentiments.
When fox-hunting was banned in the UK, there was a pretty huge outcry from the hunting community, with modest support from locals/country folk etc, and ambivalence from most of the rest of us. However, it quickly became apparent that the only real / main reason to keep hunting going was to continue the 'tradition' and to keep a few people employed. I think at this point public opinion swung in support of the government, and I think most of us haven't looked back since.
I'm all for hunting for food, but hunting for sport just seems gratuitous and disrespectful to nature.
Duncan.
Re:Pretty common. (Score:5, Informative)
I worked for a ISP that had a POP in the sticks. It's feed would regularly be shot by some stupid hick. There was also only one telco field tech for the area, and it would take him forever to respond and even longer to resolve the issue. The city has its own issues. Once a very large section of copper was stolen from the telco taking out an untold number of consumers.
If you work for telcos that have thousands of miles of fibre traversing farmland, you'll quickly come to appreciate (especially in the hunting season) that shotgun damage is a fact of life.
And no, the hunters are not shooting at the fibre or insulators, but at the pheasant, grouse and other flying game creatures that routinely alight on the overhead cables (usually power lines) that carry the fibre.
Re:Fucktards (Score:5, Informative)
I do, they're likely HID lights and thus are suitable for indoor horticulture.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Guns and chains... (Score:3, Informative)
If you had been staring right at the thing you might have lost your vision permanently... Only temporary damage if lucky.
Electric arcs are not 'fun' unless you know exactly what you are doing an take quite a lot of care not to take permanent damage from it.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Not amateurs. Drunks.
Taken out a TGV line at least once here in France. It's not unique to the States.
Re:Explain to me again please, (Score:1, Informative)
"You can't simply chase down a deer and scream liberal rhetoric at it until it kills itself, now can you"?
Yes, you can. This is in fact the San hunting method (minus the shouting). A healthy Homo Sapience can walk a herbivore to death.
It might take you a day or two, but the deer will collapse and die.
Re:Pretty common. (Score:3, Informative)
Did they steal the overhead electric power lines for the trains? That's happened in the UK, although it's more usual for them to steal the signalling cables (which can still be quite a high voltage, but are presumably easier to steal).
I don't see the point of stealing rails, scrap steel isn't worth much compared to copper.
Re:Guns and chains... (Score:5, Informative)
Agreed!
High voltage discharges create intense UV radiation - and because your retina doesn't detect UV it doesn't trigger your blink reflex.
So you'll end up with corneal burning and irritation if you're lucky, cataracts or permanent blindspots if not.
So these idiots intentionally reproducing these things to see the pretty colours deserve all they get. Unfortunate pylon workers, welders and high voltage researchers do not.
-Nano.
Hunters who don't hit much? Seems to be common... (Score:3, Informative)
According to a friend of mine, who started out as a shooting competitor and only recently started hunting, many hunters are lousy shots. He got to see their results on the range in his shooting club.
Re:Unexpected (Score:5, Informative)
I moved to Oregon from South Carolina... Arguably two of the most "redneck" states out there, except may be Idaho. What most city slickers don't realize about Oregon is that a lot of it is nature. With animals. Real animals. That will eat you.
The project I manage now is sandwiched between urban core and a rock quarry. Before the excavators moved in, we had a pack of coyotes hunting the area (and they'll be back as soon as we're done). When I hike, I regularly come across bear and cougar tracks and cougar kills. There are at least 3 cougars that share one of the urban parks with thousands of visitors. It's not unusual for trails to be posted with cougar sightings.
(For those of you who don't know, a cougar is a large cat, also known as a mountain lion.)
Many rural governments advise new residents to purchase a firearm to protect their property from assorted flesh-eating critters.
We also have a house in Europe, in the Czech Republic, which also has a long tradition of sport shooting and hunting. The wildlife is nowhere near as wild or abundant there.
So.... Yes there is a gun culture here in Oregon. The vast majority of gun owners here are responsible. Most of us responsible types stay away from the areas where the signs are shot up and people shoot at beer cans. There is a small minority of idiots. How's that different from any other population?
The only problem is that these idiots have guns. Darwin takes care of a few every year.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:1, Informative)
Which, of course, completely explains why the violent crime rate is lower in the UK, Australia, Japan, Sweden, Canada, France, Germany, and a whole host of other countries where firearms are strictly regulated.
State your reference, please. I've often seen similar statements that try to correlate firearm ownership to violence without references. As far as I can tell US crime has been falling here [consumeraffairs.com] the UK has a higher amount of total crimes per capita than the US here [nationmaster.com] and the Australia ban caused an increase in crime here [wnd.com].
I'm sure you can find articles that show the reverse. Crime statistics fluctuate and there is no clear correlation to gun control laws.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Informative)
Then why do only 3% of Americans own guns?
Once again, the moderators are on crack -- giving +1 to something that can be proved wrong with a simple Google search:
Two in Five Americans Live in Gun-Owning Households [harrisinteractive.com]
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Informative)
I think you assume that everyone in the US owns guns because of some sort of derailed-train tradition with no reasoning behind it besides "my Dad owned guns..."
You are quite mistaken. I assume no such thing.
The fact is that many people responsibly own firearms for both sporting uses and self defense. Guns are absolutely misused at times, but the irresponsibility of some few is not in any way an acceptable reason to strip me of my right to have firearms and use them for whatever legal purpose I desire.
IIRC, I made no calls towards banning guns. What I did is to dispute the claim that you need guns in order to "oppose the government" or in order to "protect yourself".
Well, to be precise, maybe you do need guns to protect yourself in USA. But if that is the case, then I can't but think that things are really bad in USA. I know for sure that I do not need a gun to protect myself over here.
I think you will also find a considerable body of research and opinions that contest the idea that banning all guns would even result in an any decline in violent crime.
I made no claims on that issue. I did say that maybe prevalence of guns is one reason people's personal space is being violated so much. And it might be. Over here guns are used very rarely by criminals, and my personal space is not violated.
I have no intent to convert you or the many posters in this thread who seem to share your perspective into gun lovers, but I would greatly appreciate even a moment of consideration before emotionally founded kneejerk responses that accuse all Americans of being uncivilized morons who need a strong government to take away anything they might hurt themselves with. Thanks
I'm not the one making that claim. We were told that we need guns to "oppose the government" and "protect ourselves". And that if we don't have guns, we are "sheeple" and we are "submitting to the government".
And like I said, it seems to me that the gun-owners are "submitting to the government" just like those who do not own guns are.
So let me re-iterate: Nowhere was I calling for banning guns. I was merely disputing the claims that guns are needed for protection and opposition to the government. The former does not apply if crime is not a problem, and the latter is utter BS.
Except deaths by gunshot wound is massively less (Score:1, Informative)
Except deaths by gunshot wound is massively less than in the US.
Yup, firearms are available to the criminal classes in the UK, but the law abiding moron in the US will more likely shoot themselves or a loved one by accident than ever either one be in a criminal shootout.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Informative)
>>>Concentration camps were where they sent the Jews
Also the japanese-descended Americans during World War 2. Or have you forgotten how FDR unconstitutionally imprisoned Americans in concentration camps? He took their liberty, their property, their homes, their wealth, and imprisoned them without trial for almost four years. FDR makes Bush look like a nice guy in comparison. FDR was an ass that mistreated millions of American citizens.
But you've forgotten that. You've forgotten we had concentration camps right here on our own soil.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:1, Informative)
UK Effectively Bans Guns - Violent Crime Goes UP - because now the criminals have a bunch of unarmed sheep they can prey upon. I've also heard horror stories about people defending themselves with whatever was available (sticks, rocks), and instead of the attacker being arrested, the victim was charged with wielding a weapon. Now that's what I call a messed-up governance.
"Gun Control's Twisted Outcome"
"Restricting firearms has helped make England more crime-ridden than the U.S."
cite - http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome [reason.com]
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Informative)
Could you clarify where you got that statistic from? According to my research, the relative murder rates* are:
US: 0.042802 per 1,000 people
UK: 0.014063 per 1,000 people
i.e. you are more than 3 times as likely to be murdered in the US.
*Source http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita [nationmaster.com]
Re:Explain to me again please, (Score:3, Informative)
You can't simply chase down a deer...
Apropos of nothing, actually, you can run down a deer, much like you can run down an antelope [salon.com]. Whether you've got the energy and the patience, on the other hand, is up to you.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:2, Informative)
If you'll pardon the crudity, bullshit.
As a Canadian, I have a massive problem with American gun culture because while the bullets traveling out of the gun can't be brought across the border, the guns themselves can. While some few guns in the hands of Canadian criminals are bought legally in Canada then stolen or just used for ill, the vast majority of them come over the world's longest undefended border. If guns weren't so trivial to buy in the U.S.A. and if they weren't so common, the problem over here wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is.
On top of that, while you in Europe may be insulated from even the problem we have here with the guns themselves, you do have a problem with the exporting of the gun culture itself. If your neighbours consume cultural artefacts that propegate gun culture, they will be more likely to have them and use them.
So yeah, bullshit.
Re:They're called *VANDALS* not hunters (Score:5, Informative)
They're idiots who shouldn't be allowed off a supervised range with a gun. Shooting at a highly elevated target with no (likely) backstop but the sky is the height of firearms irresponsibility.
Just a few years back, some yahoo in Jersey let loose a few .30 cal rounds at a soaring turkey vulture. A couple miles away, a guy working on the roof of his suburban home took the round and died on the spot.
If you're not certain of your field of fire, you don't squeeze. Period.
Re:Hunters and responsibility (Score:5, Informative)
15 years later and hunters will still defend their pass time with the fervor of a rabid PETA campaigner, or Muslim cleric. Saving the world you know. Thinning pests, and over population of grazing animals...
Hi there, hunter here from Wisconsin. Do you know that there are more deer in Wisconsin than before it was settled? It's true. And do you know why? There are no more wolves. The deer have no natural predators any more. Every year deer cost millions of dollars in crop damage and insurance claims. Almost 27000 deer/car collisions a year.* $28 million in crop damage.** They also destroy forests by eating new growth faster than it can recover. Yes they are cute and many people are afraid of guns due to ignorance and inexperience, but don't let that stop you from actually getting the facts.
And trust me, all the shitheads that want to go around poaching and shooting road signs and transformers piss off every decent hunter out there that has to defend themselves against stories like these. It's not the guns or the hunting that's the problem, it's STUPID PEOPLE.
* http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/HUNT/DEER/CKDFY10.pdf [wi.gov]
** http://learningstore.uwex.edu/assets/pdfs/G3083.pdf [uwex.edu]
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Informative)
The UK has effectively banned gun ownership, and yet has a higher murder rate than the US. Criminals now see the UK populace as unarmed sheep to be preyed upon at will.
I'm calling troll here. Sources, please?
Wikipedia article on homicides per country [wikipedia.org] notes 5.7 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for the US, and 1.45 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for England.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Informative)
Most people on Slashdot are technically competent enough to Google things for themselves. As you're apparently incapable of using Google though, enjoy:
Happiness:
http://www.happyplanetindex.org/explore/global/index.html [happyplanetindex.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Planet_Index [wikipedia.org]
Crime:
(rapes) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita [nationmaster.com]
(murders) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita [nationmaster.com]
(firearms murder and accidental) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate [wikipedia.org]
(burglaries) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita [nationmaster.com]
Health:
(life expectancy) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy [wikipedia.org]
(cancer deaths) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_dea_fro_can-health-death-from-cancer [nationmaster.com]
(obesity) http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity [nationmaster.com]
As you can see, there are some stats where the US is equal to or above a handful of European nations, but in pretty much every case the US falls below the European average, and in some cases, is below that of all European nations.
Re:Hunters and responsibility (Score:3, Informative)
I'm all for hunting for food, but hunting for sport just seems gratuitous and disrespectful to nature.
Without wading too deeply into this: I understand your sentiments, and fox hunting is never about eating. Around here, we've destroyed all natural predators. Deer have to be hunted by something or they will quickly overpopulate and destroy the local forest.
This became obvious in my home state of Indiana. We didn't allow hunting in state parks, and our largest state park (about 40 square miles) ended up with deer that had devastated the forest and were left starving to death. Literally. The state finally started doing controlled hunts, with the usual nutbags protesting it, and the deer population was brought back under control, the rest of the deer became much healthier, and the forest itself became healthier.
It's not comparable to fox hunting, which is simply done to kill foxes in and make some sort of "sport" out of it.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:5, Informative)
People in the UK have never carried guns and the ban has affected almost nobody. I've lived in London for 36 years and I have NEVER seen a gun, other than carried by the (rare) armed police, or military.
Even British police don't carry guns. There's a reason for that.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
They sure do. but at least you can send out untrained crews across the area and ID where your breaks are exactly, so the next available trained repair crew and come out and attend to it.. repairing utilities in a vault or in a trench isn't as easy.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Informative)
I support this point of view, although I think guns are worthless in close combat. What are you going to do, kick, stepback, pull a ninja-block, draw gun, fire right into the side of the temple? You won't reach the gun; the guy'll block (and then break) your arm unless you whip out some Budo or Pentjak Silat or something on his ass. Guns only work when they're pointed at someone; we need martial arts training.
You sound like you've either swallowed your sensei's bullshit, or watched too many martial arts films. I have had three years of Taekwondo and one year of Jujitsu training and even I'll argue that a firearm is useful in close quarters. Most gun encounters occur within 15 feet, which is about a second away from physical contact with the bad guy. Even 0-5 feet, the gun is invaluable, and can stop an adversary or at least allow you to escape. And if your adversary has a gun, the only thing to give you a fighting chance is another gun.
Real fighting is not like the movies. In real life, a 125 lb black belt can easily be overpowered by a 250 lb guy with very little combat training. Sorry, but there's little that technique and training can do to overcome an attacker twice your size and strength (unless they're terribly bad fighters), especially if they're armed. A gun is the best equalizer in those cases.
Re:Unexpected (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Informative)
There's a broad variety of reasons to own guns. Some people own guns because the police are not there to protect you and in some areas you NEED protection. Some people own guns because no government fears an unarmed populace, and government only works in the interest of the people when the government fears the people and not the other way around.
Somehow you are contradicting yourself. Your government is unable to work for you and doesn't provide protection, and because you have a weapon the goverment works for your interest now?
You should leave the trolling to the experts, you're bad at it: The police are not there to protect you for multiple reasons, not the least of which is that protecting you is impossible. The police can't protect you from your neighbor, but they can show up and cart him off to jail after he kills you. Or, you can protect yourself, and the police can show up and cart you off to jail in case you are dangerous, but you can use self-defense as a defense when you end up in court. Meanwhile, governments have a long history of oppressing those who cannot defend themselves. To ignore the lessons of history is to be an ignorant toolbag.
There is an easy way to force your government to work in your interest: Don't reelect the jerks who are not working in your interest.
Many of us believe that votes are not that effective. Indeed, there was more than enough demonstrated vote fraud to change the outcome of at least two recent elections.
Weapons are a very ineffective way to make threats to your government. Your goverment will always have the better weapons and the better organized troups. Threatening it with weapons just makes you a prime and outstanding target.
Owning weapons makes threatening you with weapons a less appealing option. But because of your anti-gun prejudice you assume that a gun owner will go on the offensive. This is your bias, and nothing else.
Some people own guns because to them it is an economically advantageous way to acquire food. All of these are valid reasons in my book.
Most of them are fairytales in my book. My life experience contradicts them. As a scientific hypothesis they didn't work out.
So in the end, you belittle even those who are hunting for food? You really are utterly without merit.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Informative)
So you need armed populace in order to have functional government? Um, OK.
As do we all. Some have not yet realized this. Gandhi understood it, though: "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." This is from his Autobiography. Are we on the same page yet?
Similarly, people are the victims of violent crime and government oppression every day.
Sure. But that doesn't mean that I feel the need to carry guns with me.
Logical fallacy: Attacking a straw man. I don't carry my guns with me unless I'm taking them somewhere I'm going to fire them.
Hell, I have never been in a situation where I have to defend my person or my property through use of force. Does that mean that I'm "missing out" on something?
It means you're lucky.
And, FWIW, I have never faced any "oppression" from the government.
Are you seriously telling me that you don't want to do anything your government doesn't want you to do, which you regard as reasonable? You're boring.
So, is USA such a shithole that you need guns to protect yourself from your neighbours and from the government? Because if I believed the gun-owners, that is the reality over there. And five seconds later they have said that, they start telling what a great place USA is. Huh?
Wait, you're a Finn? By the end of 2006 there were more than 1.6 million licensed firearms.[1] Averaged among Finland's population of 5.3 million it comes to 30.5 per 100 people. Another study puts the number of firearms per capita as high as 0.55 [2] [wikipedia.org] further hilarity from the same source: To obtain a firearms license, an individual must declare a valid reason to own a gun. Acceptable reasons include hunting, sports or hobby shooting, profession related, show or promotion or exhibition, collection or museum, souvenir, and signalling. It is worth noticing that self- or home defence are not considered valid reasons. So it's okay with your government if you shoot shit for fun, but not to defend yourself? Finns have fourth most firearms in the world per capita (right after United States, Yemen, Switzerland) totalling 1.8 million registered privately owned firearms and 100,000-200,000 unregistered firearms.[2] Gun related homicides are rare, comprising 14% of the total number of homicides,[3] which is comparatively low. [wikipedia.org] You have a shitload of guns, just less than us! You're fucking full of shit! You have no idea what your government would be like if your populace was not armed, because it is. Why don't you come back and try again when you have a point? Do you really need all those guns in your country? It must be some kind of shithole!
of course you can! (Score:1, Informative)
Ummm, that is how hunting started. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:1, Informative)
Apparently you can Google things for yourself, but you can't (or at least didn't) check definitions very well.
According to the wikipedia page that you linked to: "Much criticism of the index has been due to commentators falsely understanding it to be a measure of happiness, when it is in fact a measure of the ecological efficiency of supporting well-being."
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Informative)
At which point did WWII partisans ever become a threat the third reich ?
You didn't say anything about being an existential threat. You claimed that "no guerilla force would survive for a week" under harsh conditions - a claim that is clearly invalidated by the fact that WWII resistance fighters were active for the duration of the war.
Sure they were able to slightly disrupt some shipping channels, and pass information to an external invading force, but that's it.
There were notable successes. Operation Gunnerside. [wikipedia.org] A heavy water [wikipedia.org] factory and over 500kg of heavy water destroyed by resistance fighters.
"The saboteurs then placed explosive charges on the heavy water electrolysis chambers, and attached a fuse allowing sufficient time for their escape. A British submachine gun was purposely left behind to indicate that this was the work of British forces and not of the local resistance, in order to alleviate reprisals. A surreal episode ensued when fuses were about to be lit: the caretaker was worried about his spectacles which were lying somewhere in the room (during the war new glasses were nearly impossible to acquire). A frantic search for the caretaker's spectacles ensued, they were found — and the fuses lit. The explosive charges detonated, destroying the electrolysis chambers.
The raid was considered successful. The entire inventory of heavy water produced during the German occupation, over 500 kilograms, was destroyed along with equipment critical to operation of the electrolysis chambers. Although 3000 German soldiers were dispatched to search the area for the commandos, all of them escaped; five of them skied 400 kilometres to Sweden, two proceeded to Oslo where they assisted Milorg, and four remained in the region for further work with the resistance."
That was just one operation of many [wikipedia.org]. The resistance were also invaluable for gaining intelligence on the ground - intelligence that contributed directly to the greater military effort.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Informative)
The point is this: The second amendment isn't a blanket endorsement of keeping a gun whenever you want.
The courts disagree. DC handgun ban is unconstitutional, a handgun is an assault or defense weapon, although it does certainly have a place in hunting. A "well-regulated" militia was (according to some interpretations) one in which the citizens were required to own a certain quantity of powder and shot.
But anyone thinking that the second gives us the right to overthrow the government is reaching and asking to get burned.
The right to overthrow the government is a basic human right. It is not enumerated in the constitution because it would just be asking for trouble, but the constitution explicitly tells us that the rights described therein are not intended to be an exhaustive list. But "overthrow the government" is a very broad term. We have a name for an interested group seizing power, we call it a coup. When the people seize power, it is called a revolution. It is in the pursuit of this second goal that an armed populace clearly has more power than one which is unarmed.
Guns aren't just a right-wing issue (Score:4, Informative)
Guns are supported by many on the left in American politics. We even have the Pink Pistols, a gay pro-gun group ("Armed gays don't get bashed"), and the NRA has endorsed many Democratic candidates based on their pro-gun stance.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:4, Informative)
>>>You have no idea what you are talking about
You're right.
Which is why I provided a link to an article (which you did not read so I'll quote SOME of it for you). "On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, 'theirs is worse than ours.' ..... In the two years since Dan Rather was so roundly rebuked, violence in England has gotten markedly worse. Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day this year a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone. London police are now looking to New York City police for advice."
"None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. ..... The results -- the toughest firearm restrictions of any democracy -- are credited by the world's gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime. ..... In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them."
"In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. ..... Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners....."
Yeah I know.
I'll be modded troll.
People hate to face Facts - it makes their brains hurt (cognitive dissonance).
"In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected."
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:1, Informative)
That Happy Planet Index also shows Cuba as one of the happiest places on earth.
Nonsense.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Informative)
You realise that America is the longest existing democracy right ?
Parliament of England: established 1241. [wikipedia.org]The first elected parliament of England was De Montfort's Parliament in 1265. [wikipedia.org] If you are talking about universal suffrage, then New Zealand was the first to grant that right and keep it in 1893 - U.S. didn't catch up till 1965.
The last version of what arguably still was the Roman government was removed from this planet less than 80 years ago by Kemal Ataturk
Roman Empire: [wikipedia.org] "The Western Roman Empire collapsed in 476 as Romulus Augustus was forced to abdicate by Odoacer. The Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire ended in 1453 with the death of Constantine XI and the capture of Constantinople by the Ottoman Turks led by Mehmed II."
Hell, there are species on this planet that haven't lasted as long as the Roman state. A lot of them.
[citation needed]
Re:Explain to me again please, (Score:1, Informative)
Actually, you can just chase down a deer and scream liberal rhetoric at it until it dies...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_hunting
Of course, the liberal rhetoric doesn't help any, but it sure feels good to scream it.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
They sure do. but at least you can send out untrained crews across the area and ID where your breaks are exactly, so the next available trained repair crew and come out and attend to it.. repairing utilities in a vault or in a trench isn't as easy.
No, it may not be as easy to identify a break on a buried line versus a high line, but the likelihood of a problem occurring with a buried line aren't as high as they are with a high line (IMO) in my neck of the woods. Sure, a backhoe or trencher may cut a line, but I think in that case the problem area is pretty apparent.
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:1, Informative)
I see your the military's trained to never deploy against Americans and raise you Kent State
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Informative)
cite - http://reason.com/archives/2002/11/01/gun-controls-twisted-outcome [reason.com]
quote of relevant portions -
"On a June evening two years ago, Dan Rather made many stiff British upper lips quiver by reporting that England had a crime problem and that, apart from murder, 'theirs is worse than ours.' ..... None of this was supposed to happen in the country whose stringent gun laws and 1997 ban on handguns have been hailed as the "gold standard" of gun control. ..... In reality, the English approach has not re-duced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them."
"In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued. From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent. ..... Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners....."
Yeah I know.
I'll be modded troll.
People hate to face Facts (cognitive dissonance) - but there they are.
"In 1969 police were informed "it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person." These changes were made without public knowledge or debate. Their enforcement has consumed hundreds of thousands of police hours. Finally, in 1997 handguns were banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected."
Re:Immature and Gun Happy (Score:3, Informative)
Really, read a book or two. There where literally thousands of attacks on significant German forces, in Russia, in the Balkan, in France.
Hold up. As a WWII wargamer and avid book worm on the matter, I have to few things to point out on the partisan issue:
1. The Yugoslavian army was still standing in the field when they surrendered. They actually went home with the uniforms and guns.
2. The majority of the Russian partisan movement was actually Russian soldiers who escaped into the massive encirclements (ie into Pripiat swamps). Stalin had NKVD officers parachute into these areas along with supply drops. These were in radio contact with the main Soviet forces and actually participated in rear action battles just like regular units. They even received airsupport, had light tanks, and artillery pieces.
3. Greece liberated itself when the Germans withdrew to deal with the Yugoslavians and the Soviet southern push in 1944. It is also noted that Greece went into a civil war somewhat after this.
4. The French resistance was somewhat ineffective due to the massive garrison and the brutality of the of the reprisals the German garrison would often inflect on the population (ie killing entire villages in punatary actions) and the majority of the French resistance did not rise until D-Day.
And concluding on this point... Both the Soviet loss in Afghanistan and the US loss in Vietnam was due to foreign intervention. You cannot defend yourself from air attacks with hunting weapons and AK-47s.
Think on how both Afghanistan and Chechnya went down.
In that regard, the only way Americans people could ever have a chance against their own army is either owning military grade weapons or be supported by
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
Upon arrival to a site the crew will either find an abandoned construction site or vehicle accident. Construction crews generally leave the site when they hit a cable because they know work is done for the day and their employer is about to have an unpleasant phone call from someone like me. The bill for a cut like this runs in the tens of thousands of dollars.
If an obvious break isn't found, then you have to start looking for squirrel chews on aerial and rat chews in underground conduit. That's generally just a partial break so you can roll your fiber at the two nearest splice points onto good dark fibers, or at least fibers occupied by lower speed systems.