Another asteroid sampling mission, and yet NONE to Mars yet?

wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:40 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:23 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:36 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.
IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have

them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

No one could ever accuse Davoid of committing a thought crime, nor
could those at his local school system, since neither he nor they seem
to be capable of thought in the first place.

However, six year olds apparently can be so accused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pended-from-si...

Just another symptom of a sick society. Easier to punish a six year old
than banish guns.

The six year old did nothing wrong, and therefore needed no
punishment.

A gun probably would have saved the victim in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Paul-Cox-83...

We can rest assured that your constabulary, perhaps having no guns,
pursued the assailant(s) with "extreme assertiveness" correct?

31,000 gun deaths in USA in 2011 including 11,101 murders.
51 gun deaths in UK in 2011.

Break that down for us by ethnic group of perp, ethnic group of
victim, age of victim, gender of victim, gun laws versus murder rate
by US state and city, % of gun homicides versus all homicides, cases
where guns were used for self defense, etc.

It would appear that you open up your citizens to being murdered by
means other than guns. What have you to say about the case of the
elderly UK man strangled in his home last year?

Guns are equalizers. As a collectivist you should be in favor of
that.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/...-crime-figures

If you had read the article perhaps you might have learned that crime
rates are dropping throughout the western world and that much of this
is due to improved security technology along with lower demand for
stolen goods.

Now, how about providing some detailed numbers to go along with (and
refute) the cherry-picked stats you foisted upon us earlier.

While you are at it, tell us more about who ends up being the victims
when guns are "banished." Start with the example of the elderly man
who was strangled in his own home. Did he have a gun?

Then, tell us what the six year old did that was wrong.

It's your country. Look up the stats yourself.
Had the elderly man had a gun at home he would probably still been
strangled. They wouldn't use it to shoot him because it would have
attracted too much attention.

The six year old did nothing wrong but your sick society finds it easier to
punish an innocent child than remove the weapons from dangerous gun owners.
By dangerous gun owner I mean anyone who thinks its a good idea to have a
gun for anything by hunting.

On Jan 5, 12:06*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:36 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
*Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.
IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have

them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

No one could ever accuse Davoid of committing a thought crime, nor
could those at his local school system, since neither he nor they seem
to be capable of thought in the first place.

However, six year olds apparently can be so accused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pended-from-si....

Just another symptom of a sick society. Easier to *punish a six year old
than banish guns.

The six year old did nothing wrong, and therefore needed no
punishment.

A gun probably would have saved the victim in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Paul-Cox-83...

We can rest assured that your constabulary, perhaps having no guns,
pursued the assailant(s) with "extreme assertiveness" correct?

http://www.newscentralga.com/news/lo...-calling-for-o...

And your point is?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...th-one-bullet/

wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:06 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:36 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.
IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have

them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

No one could ever accuse Davoid of committing a thought crime, nor
could those at his local school system, since neither he nor they seem
to be capable of thought in the first place.

However, six year olds apparently can be so accused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pended-from-si...

Just another symptom of a sick society. Easier to punish a six year old
than banish guns.

The six year old did nothing wrong, and therefore needed no
punishment.

A gun probably would have saved the victim in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Paul-Cox-83...

We can rest assured that your constabulary, perhaps having no guns,
pursued the assailant(s) with "extreme assertiveness" correct?

http://www.newscentralga.com/news/lo...-calling-for-o...

And your point is?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/man-...th-one-bullet/

Two people shot apart from the gunman.
Plus the gunman.
Good job he was incompetent and the gun jammed.
Now tell me how many would have been shot or killed if he didn't have a
gun.

On Jan 5, 2:56*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:40 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:23 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:36 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
*Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.
IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have

them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

No one could ever accuse Davoid of committing a thought crime, nor
could those at his local school system, since neither he nor they seem
to be capable of thought in the first place.

However, six year olds apparently can be so accused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pended-from-si...

Just another symptom of a sick society. Easier to *punish a six year old
than banish guns.

The six year old did nothing wrong, and therefore needed no
punishment.

A gun probably would have saved the victim in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Paul-Cox-83...

We can rest assured that your constabulary, perhaps having no guns,
pursued the assailant(s) with "extreme assertiveness" correct?

31,000 gun deaths in USA in 2011 including 11,101 murders.
51 gun deaths in UK in 2011.

Break that down for us by ethnic group of perp, ethnic group of
victim, age of victim, gender of victim, gun laws versus murder rate
by US state and city, % of gun homicides versus all homicides, cases
where guns were used for self defense, etc.

It would appear that you open up your citizens to being murdered by
means other than guns. What have you to say about the case of the
elderly UK man strangled in his home last year?

Guns are equalizers. *As a collectivist you should be in favor of
that.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/...-crime-figures

If you had read the article perhaps you might have learned that crime
rates are dropping throughout the western world and that much of this
is due to improved security technology along with lower demand for
stolen goods.

Now, how about providing some detailed numbers to go along with (and
refute) the cherry-picked stats you foisted upon us earlier.

While you are at it, tell us more about who ends up being the victims
when guns are "banished." Start with the example of the elderly man
who was strangled in his own home. *Did he have a gun?

Then, tell us what the six year old did that was wrong.

It's your country. Look up the stats yourself.

No, you brought the subject up by providing some misleading and phony
stats. Now, if you are going to mouth off in this forum you had
better have something to back up your statements.

Had the elderly man had a gun at home he would probably still been
strangled. They wouldn't use it to shoot him because it would have
attracted too much attention.

More likely he would have been able to defend himself against a
stronger attacker able to strangle him. It is unlikely that he would
have used a weapon against anyone except an intruder. Therefore it
makes no sense to deny him a weapon.

The six year old did nothing wrong but your sick society finds it easier to
punish an innocent child than remove the weapons from dangerous gun owners.

Actually it isn't a "sick society" but rather one being overrun by
"politically-correct" idiots who work for various parts of the
government. The parents should sue the school system and the teacher
and principal should be fired immediately.

By dangerous gun owner I mean anyone who thinks its a good idea to have a
gun for anything by hunting.

An example of a dangerous gun owner would be a criminal who wishes to
use a gun to commit a crime. An example of a non-dangerous gun owner
would be a law-abiding citizen who wishes to keep or carry a gun for
protection.

Under your (backward thinking) system innocent people are not allowed
to defend themselves. They might be somewhat less likely to be shot,
but relatively more likely to be beaten, stabbed or strangled to
death.

wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:56 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:40 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:23 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:36 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.
IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have

them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

No one could ever accuse Davoid of committing a thought crime, nor
could those at his local school system, since neither he nor they seem
to be capable of thought in the first place.

However, six year olds apparently can be so accused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pended-from-si...

Just another symptom of a sick society. Easier to punish a six year old
than banish guns.

The six year old did nothing wrong, and therefore needed no
punishment.

A gun probably would have saved the victim in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Paul-Cox-83...

We can rest assured that your constabulary, perhaps having no guns,
pursued the assailant(s) with "extreme assertiveness" correct?

31,000 gun deaths in USA in 2011 including 11,101 murders.
51 gun deaths in UK in 2011.

Break that down for us by ethnic group of perp, ethnic group of
victim, age of victim, gender of victim, gun laws versus murder rate
by US state and city, % of gun homicides versus all homicides, cases
where guns were used for self defense, etc.

It would appear that you open up your citizens to being murdered by
means other than guns. What have you to say about the case of the
elderly UK man strangled in his home last year?

Guns are equalizers. As a collectivist you should be in favor of
that.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/...-crime-figures

If you had read the article perhaps you might have learned that crime
rates are dropping throughout the western world and that much of this
is due to improved security technology along with lower demand for
stolen goods.

Now, how about providing some detailed numbers to go along with (and
refute) the cherry-picked stats you foisted upon us earlier.

While you are at it, tell us more about who ends up being the victims
when guns are "banished." Start with the example of the elderly man
who was strangled in his own home. Did he have a gun?

Then, tell us what the six year old did that was wrong.

It's your country. Look up the stats yourself.

No, you brought the subject up by providing some misleading and phony
stats. Now, if you are going to mouth off in this forum you had
better have something to back up your statements.

Had the elderly man had a gun at home he would probably still been
strangled. They wouldn't use it to shoot him because it would have
attracted too much attention.

More likely he would have been able to defend himself against a
stronger attacker able to strangle him. It is unlikely that he would
have used a weapon against anyone except an intruder. Therefore it
makes no sense to deny him a weapon.

The six year old did nothing wrong but your sick society finds it easier to
punish an innocent child than remove the weapons from dangerous gun owners.

Actually it isn't a "sick society" but rather one being overrun by
"politically-correct" idiots who work for various parts of the
government. The parents should sue the school system and the teacher
and principal should be fired immediately.

By dangerous gun owner I mean anyone who thinks its a good idea to have a
gun for anything by hunting.

An example of a dangerous gun owner would be a criminal who wishes to
use a gun to commit a crime. An example of a non-dangerous gun owner
would be a law-abiding citizen who wishes to keep or carry a gun for
protection.

Under your (backward thinking) system innocent people are not allowed
to defend themselves. They might be somewhat less likely to be shot,
but relatively more likely to be beaten, stabbed or strangled to
death.

Us murder rate 5 per thousand
UK murder rate 1.5 per thousand

On Jan 5, 4:11*pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:56 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:40 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:23 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:36 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
*Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.
IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have

them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

No one could ever accuse Davoid of committing a thought crime, nor
could those at his local school system, since neither he nor they seem
to be capable of thought in the first place.

However, six year olds apparently can be so accused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pended-from-si...

Just another symptom of a sick society. Easier to *punish a six year old
than banish guns.

The six year old did nothing wrong, and therefore needed no
punishment.

A gun probably would have saved the victim in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Paul-Cox-83...

We can rest assured that your constabulary, perhaps having no guns,
pursued the assailant(s) with "extreme assertiveness" correct?

31,000 gun deaths in USA in 2011 including 11,101 murders.
51 gun deaths in UK in 2011.

Break that down for us by ethnic group of perp, ethnic group of
victim, age of victim, gender of victim, gun laws versus murder rate
by US state and city, % of gun homicides versus all homicides, cases
where guns were used for self defense, etc.

It would appear that you open up your citizens to being murdered by
means other than guns. What have you to say about the case of the
elderly UK man strangled in his home last year?

Guns are equalizers. *As a collectivist you should be in favor of
that.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/...-crime-figures

If you had read the article perhaps you might have learned that crime
rates are dropping throughout the western world and that much of this
is due to improved security technology along with lower demand for
stolen goods.

Now, how about providing some detailed numbers to go along with (and
refute) the cherry-picked stats you foisted upon us earlier.

While you are at it, tell us more about who ends up being the victims
when guns are "banished." Start with the example of the elderly man
who was strangled in his own home. *Did he have a gun?

Then, tell us what the six year old did that was wrong.

It's your country. Look up the stats yourself.

No, you brought the subject up by providing some misleading and phony
stats. *Now, if you are going to mouth off in this forum you had
better have something to back up your statements.

Had the elderly man had a gun at home he would probably still been
strangled. They wouldn't use it to shoot him because it would have
attracted too much attention.

More likely he would have been able to defend himself against a
stronger attacker able to strangle him. *It is unlikely that he would
have used a weapon against anyone except an intruder. *Therefore it
makes no sense to deny him a weapon.

The six year old did nothing wrong but your sick society finds it easier to
punish an innocent child than remove the weapons from dangerous gun owners.

Actually it isn't a "sick society" but rather one being overrun by
"politically-correct" idiots who work for various parts of the
government. *The parents should sue the school system and the teacher
and principal should be fired immediately.

By dangerous gun owner I mean anyone who thinks its a good idea to have a
gun for anything by hunting.

An example of a dangerous gun owner would be a criminal who wishes to
use a gun to commit a crime. *An example of a non-dangerous gun owner
would be a law-abiding citizen who wishes to keep or carry a gun for
protection.

Under your (backward thinking) system innocent people are not allowed
to defend themselves. *They might be somewhat less likely to be shot,
but relatively more likely to be beaten, stabbed or strangled to
death.

Us murder rate 5 per thousand
UK murder rate 1.5 per thousand

There is the little matter of Vermont with a 1.3 per thousand murder
rate and gun laws that are among the LEAST restrictive in the US.
Now, in what way is Vermont similar to the UK but different from, say,
South Carolina or Illinois?

(Helpful Hint: Maybe guns -aren't- the problem!)

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:57:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Mars is one of the most technically difficult planets to land on.

As opposed to landing on Mercury, Venus or one of the gas giants?!

Well, you can't really land on a gas giant, can you? Mars is much more
difficult than either Venus or Mercury, however. The problem is that
it's very difficult to shed velocity on Mars, because the atmosphere
is so thin, but that atmosphere is still thick enough to destroy a
spacecraft that's going to fast.

By most accounts, Mars is the most dynamically difficult body in the
Solar System to land on.

wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:11 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:56 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:40 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:23 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:36 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.
IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have

them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

No one could ever accuse Davoid of committing a thought crime, nor
could those at his local school system, since neither he nor they seem
to be capable of thought in the first place.

However, six year olds apparently can be so accused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pended-from-si...

Just another symptom of a sick society. Easier to punish a six year old
than banish guns.

The six year old did nothing wrong, and therefore needed no
punishment.

A gun probably would have saved the victim in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Paul-Cox-83...

We can rest assured that your constabulary, perhaps having no guns,
pursued the assailant(s) with "extreme assertiveness" correct?

31,000 gun deaths in USA in 2011 including 11,101 murders.
51 gun deaths in UK in 2011.

Break that down for us by ethnic group of perp, ethnic group of
victim, age of victim, gender of victim, gun laws versus murder rate
by US state and city, % of gun homicides versus all homicides, cases
where guns were used for self defense, etc.

It would appear that you open up your citizens to being murdered by
means other than guns. What have you to say about the case of the
elderly UK man strangled in his home last year?

Guns are equalizers. As a collectivist you should be in favor of
that.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/...-crime-figures

If you had read the article perhaps you might have learned that crime
rates are dropping throughout the western world and that much of this
is due to improved security technology along with lower demand for
stolen goods.

Now, how about providing some detailed numbers to go along with (and
refute) the cherry-picked stats you foisted upon us earlier.

While you are at it, tell us more about who ends up being the victims
when guns are "banished." Start with the example of the elderly man
who was strangled in his own home. Did he have a gun?

Then, tell us what the six year old did that was wrong.

It's your country. Look up the stats yourself.

No, you brought the subject up by providing some misleading and phony
stats. Now, if you are going to mouth off in this forum you had
better have something to back up your statements.

Had the elderly man had a gun at home he would probably still been
strangled. They wouldn't use it to shoot him because it would have
attracted too much attention.

More likely he would have been able to defend himself against a
stronger attacker able to strangle him. It is unlikely that he would
have used a weapon against anyone except an intruder. Therefore it
makes no sense to deny him a weapon.

The six year old did nothing wrong but your sick society finds it easier to
punish an innocent child than remove the weapons from dangerous gun owners.

Actually it isn't a "sick society" but rather one being overrun by
"politically-correct" idiots who work for various parts of the
government. The parents should sue the school system and the teacher
and principal should be fired immediately.

By dangerous gun owner I mean anyone who thinks its a good idea to have a
gun for anything by hunting.

An example of a dangerous gun owner would be a criminal who wishes to
use a gun to commit a crime. An example of a non-dangerous gun owner
would be a law-abiding citizen who wishes to keep or carry a gun for
protection.

Under your (backward thinking) system innocent people are not allowed
to defend themselves. They might be somewhat less likely to be shot,
but relatively more likely to be beaten, stabbed or strangled to
death.

Us murder rate 5 per thousand
UK murder rate 1.5 per thousand

There is the little matter of Vermont with a 1.3 per thousand murder
rate and gun laws that are among the LEAST restrictive in the US.
Now, in what way is Vermont similar to the UK but different from, say,
South Carolina or Illinois?

(Helpful Hint: Maybe guns -aren't- the problem!)

Vermont has a high rating for factors which are associated with low murder
rates.
Low unemployment

Good healthcare - especially for children

Close to Canadian border

High number of democrat voters.

And many others.

However the overall annual death rate from firearms is the highest in New
England at about 8 per 100,000

About twice the New England rate.




http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/u...h-rate?order=0


http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/...hs-4147569.php

On Jan 6, 5:05*am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 4:11 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 2:56 pm, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 11:40 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 10:23 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:36 am, Mike Collins wrote:
wrote:
On Jan 4, 11:54 am, Paul Schlyter wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:20:30 -0500, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
So they can get material from pint-sized asteroids (second
mission
is planned) but we've yet to send and get back a probe to Mars.
*Why?
Paul Schlyter:
Because the gravity of Mars is much higher and therefore a sample
return from Mars requires much more fuel.
IMO, neither mission makes sense. You can buy a piece of an
asteroid on
Astromart for $100. A piece of Mars costs a bit more, but we have

them.

Nobody knows from where on Mars these pieces came. On pieces obtained
from a sample return mission, one would know that

No one could ever accuse Davoid of committing a thought crime, nor
could those at his local school system, since neither he nor they seem
to be capable of thought in the first place.

However, six year olds apparently can be so accused:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...pended-from-si...

Just another symptom of a sick society. Easier to *punish a six year old
than banish guns.

The six year old did nothing wrong, and therefore needed no
punishment.

A gun probably would have saved the victim in this case:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...er-Paul-Cox-83...

We can rest assured that your constabulary, perhaps having no guns,
pursued the assailant(s) with "extreme assertiveness" correct?

31,000 gun deaths in USA in 2011 including 11,101 murders.
51 gun deaths in UK in 2011.

Break that down for us by ethnic group of perp, ethnic group of
victim, age of victim, gender of victim, gun laws versus murder rate
by US state and city, % of gun homicides versus all homicides, cases
where guns were used for self defense, etc.

It would appear that you open up your citizens to being murdered by
means other than guns. What have you to say about the case of the
elderly UK man strangled in his home last year?

Guns are equalizers. *As a collectivist you should be in favor of
that.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/...-crime-figures

If you had read the article perhaps you might have learned that crime
rates are dropping throughout the western world and that much of this
is due to improved security technology along with lower demand for
stolen goods.

Now, how about providing some detailed numbers to go along with (and
refute) the cherry-picked stats you foisted upon us earlier.

While you are at it, tell us more about who ends up being the victims
when guns are "banished." Start with the example of the elderly man
who was strangled in his own home. *Did he have a gun?

Then, tell us what the six year old did that was wrong.

It's your country. Look up the stats yourself.

No, you brought the subject up by providing some misleading and phony
stats. *Now, if you are going to mouth off in this forum you had
better have something to back up your statements.

Had the elderly man had a gun at home he would probably still been
strangled. They wouldn't use it to shoot him because it would have
attracted too much attention.

More likely he would have been able to defend himself against a
stronger attacker able to strangle him. *It is unlikely that he would
have used a weapon against anyone except an intruder. *Therefore it
makes no sense to deny him a weapon.

The six year old did nothing wrong but your sick society finds it easier to
punish an innocent child than remove the weapons from dangerous gun owners.

Actually it isn't a "sick society" but rather one being overrun by
"politically-correct" idiots who work for various parts of the
government. *The parents should sue the school system and the teacher
and principal should be fired immediately.

By dangerous gun owner I mean anyone who thinks its a good idea to have a
gun for anything by hunting.

An example of a dangerous gun owner would be a criminal who wishes to
use a gun to commit a crime. *An example of a non-dangerous gun owner
would be a law-abiding citizen who wishes to keep or carry a gun for
protection.

Under your (backward thinking) system innocent people are not allowed
to defend themselves. *They might be somewhat less likely to be shot,
but relatively more likely to be beaten, stabbed or strangled to
death.

Us murder rate 5 per thousand
UK murder rate 1.5 per thousand

There is the little matter of Vermont with a 1.3 per thousand murder
rate and gun laws that are among the LEAST restrictive in the US.
Now, in what way is Vermont similar to the UK but different from, say,
South Carolina or Illinois?

(Helpful Hint: *Maybe guns -aren't- the problem!)

Vermont has a high rating for factors which are associated with low murder
rates.

And the most obvious is....??

Low unemployment

Murder rates have remained flat or declined despite high unemployment.

Good healthcare - especially for children

Irrelevant. Most criminals are young and physically healthy.

Close to Canadian border

Irrelevant. And Iowa has a similarly low murder rate, and is located
further from Canada than Michigan is. Iowa borders Missouri and
Illinois both of which have much higher murder rates.

High number of democrat voters.

The murder rate is generally much higher in districts that vote
Democrat.

And many others.

You should go on ahead and try to list them since you are batting zero
so far.

However the overall annual death rate from firearms is the highest in New
England at about 8 per 100,000

Irrelevant. We are not concerned with accidental deaths or suicide in
this discussion, only with murders. In most places no one is required
to own a gun nor to kill themselves with it.

About twice the New England rate.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/u...-death-rate?or...

http://www.ctpost.com/local/article/...tions-reduce-g...

One could ban car ownership in an attempt to reduce traffic deaths,
ban sugary soft drinks and fast food outlets to reduce obesity, ban
cigarettes to reduce lung cancer, the list goes on...

On Jan 5, 6:55*pm, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:57:17 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

Mars is one of the most technically difficult planets to land on.

As opposed to landing on Mercury, Venus or one of the gas giants?!

Well, you can't really land on a gas giant, can you? Mars is much more
difficult than either Venus or Mercury, however. The problem is that
it's very difficult to shed velocity on Mars, because the atmosphere
is so thin, but that atmosphere is still thick enough to destroy a
spacecraft that's going to fast.

Anything that can be done to reduce the weight of the craft would
help.

By most accounts, Mars is the most dynamically difficult body in the
Solar System to land on.

Mercury has a similar gravity to Mars, yet no atmosphere. The weight
savings from lack of heat shield and parachutes is probably outweighed
by needing to rely on rocket fuel to control descent.