Most rifles can shoot BBs or Pellets. BB's are round and made of copper. Pellets are made of lead and have a flat end and a concave end.
The propulsion they all have in common is pressurized gas, either air or CO2. If it's air, the gun must be pumped (about 10-12 pumps usually does it.) Pistols are more commonly CO2, and require co2 canisters, but there are pump pistols as well. Either way, the report of a round being fired is probably quieter than a balloon being popped. It varies with the gun, but it's nowhere as loud as a conventional gunpowder round. BB's are great at breaking glass because they don't compress on impact, hence they are good at transmitting all of their energy on a very small cross section. She could have heard the "tap" of the bb's impact, then the glass shattering a split second later, that might have been confused for the shot.
Yes, I have both of those already. Antennas may seem archaic, but Over-the-air HDTV, as well as digital TV is available in most major metro areas to those with an HDTV antenna. In Phoenix you can get most channels digital and about 1/2 dozen in HD, all for free. However, that's Phoenix. I'm trying to find out if anyone in Payson has had success here before I climb up on my roof!
TG said: "It will, of course, be touted as a backlash against gays and lesbians, and to some extent it will be, but it is more in the nature of outrage felt by people who do not want their fundamental institutions undermined and their traditions changed by a federal government which is simply out of control."
Ah yes, I see, so banning gay marriage is a strengthener and defender of marriage. I'll have my popcorn ready to watch the divorce rate plummet and incidence of solid marriages increase.
Look Tom, if you don't want gays to marry, and it's clear that you don't, then just admit it, but don't hide behind some rationalization about marriage's strengthening of society.
TG also said: "Come on, Chris! You know better than to fiddle around with semantics.
Gee! :-)
You know we aren't banning gay unions, just fixing it so that they won't be called “marriages” and therefore become eligible for tax breaks intended for standard marriage."
I'm not playing semantics games. I referred to gay marriages, and I meant gay marriages. If we ban gay marriages today we will never have empirical evidence to prove or disprove the quality of gay marriages tomorrow, so how will we ever know? That has nothing to do with "unions". A union is not a marriage. Census statistics are not kept on "unions", and there is no divorce rate tracked on "unions". So my question to you still stands.
While you're at it, could you give some specific reference of these "tax breaks" you get for being married, please? I certainly don't recall getting a tax break when I wed, in fact I'm familiar with something called the federal Marriage Tax Penalty, and I'm reminded of it every April.
TG said: "...because I have to shell out $7,000 to sell the house..."
No you don't. It's not mandatory to use a realtor who charges 7%, or that you even use one at all. You're free to go FSBO, find a lower cost realtor, or negotiate. This works with mortgages and negotiating closing costs as well. Just because someone hangs a shingle out doesn't mean you to pay their rate. You can't blame realtors for trying to make a living and charging what the market will bear, blame the people who keep paying the 7%. Sellers can't set market prices alone, it takes a buyer for a transaction to occur. If a buyer pays that $110,000 for that house worth $100,000, they're the dope.
"If some time in the vague future there is an accumulation of evidence that any other type of marriage does the same thing, THEN it will be time to add those types of marriage to the list of things that should receive tax breaks."
Tom, if we ban gay marriages in 2008, how will we ever know?
I don't understand how the quality of relationships between a man and a woman enters into the discussion about Prop 102. There is nothing in the proposal about the quality of the relationship, only the strict terms of gender.
There's no reason to get caught up in semantics. The semantics of the prop are clear, "one man and a woman". That leaves only two discrete combinations, a man and a man and a woman and a woman, by definition, both gay marriages. I don't know what other possible permutations you might be alluding to. (Unless you want to discuss polygamy.) Anyway, there is not enough empirical evidence yet to rule whether a gay marriage is of any poorer quality than a heterosexual marriage, (and I don't believe in anecdotal arguments, so don't bother). So if that's your only concern, why not give it a shot?
Tom, here are my opinions. We agree on 5 out of 8.
100. NO. The state has too much power to force these transactions, so it's a natural conflict of interest to let them tax this. This is unnecessary.
101 NO. This is preemptive legislation aimed at torpedoing health care reform down the road. It serves no other practical purpose today.
102 NO. When are we going to get past this already? This does nothing to strengthen families. What it does is say to gays "You're not welcome here". If that's what you want, then vote for it, but that's why you're voting for it. There are about 1,000 things I could think of to strengthen families before this.
105 NO. No one likes new taxes, but we can't expect our government to be effective then take the power to levy taxes away from it.
200 NO. This is the wrong type of regulation for a credit business. If you don't like payday loan companies (and who does?) then don't patronize them, but don't try to punish them with legislation. This will either A) drive them under or B) create unrealistic credit scenarios that we will be bailing out next. If you think their rates are usurous, don't use them.
201 NO. I support this in principle, no one should be ripped off by their builder, but don't see how we're going to enforce it. 10 years is a long time. How do you keep them from declaring bankruptcy? Is the state then responsible? Needs more work.
202 NO. The current law is working fine. This is just to satisfy the more extreme element, but will probably end up in a court challenge (which will likely reverse all ground gained to-date.)
Tom, I don't "spout". I speak, I ask questions, just as you do. You really need to find a better tactics than the personally dismissive comments, they're clearly not working.
Second, I didn't have to be alive during the Great Depression in order to have AN OPINION here. All I need for that is citizenship and a 1040 form.
It's not being partisan to ask questions. If the plan is solid, then those questions will be answered. It's partisan to NOT ask questions and just go along with what GWB says, because he's always steered us straight in the past, right?
The current (Friday night) bailout plan is a gift, it's a surprise lottery win, when it should be a loan. There should be some strings. With the original plan, Barney Frank had to go and ask for salary limits for executives of investment banks. The pilot of a bankrupt company should get a bailout AND continue to earn $100 million a year?
He had to ASK for that?
So that means someone thought that was OK to NOT have that??
How about making the people who profited from getting us into this mess actually pay for it? How about creating some kind of harsher penalty for those who just "walk away" from upside down mortgages? It shouldn't be just that easy to sacrifice your credit and get out of it. These same people are back at it again anyway once they scrape together some more money and get a "mule" to pose for them at the loan desk.
How about some reform of the capital gains tax to make those who took incredible profits out of their real estate give something back? How about tethering builders and loan officers with some responsibility for building and selling worthless properties. If you built a 120-unit development out in the desert and made a huge profit on every one of those houses, and that community is now 90% in foreclosure, you know what? You owe the rest of us something. Time to give back.
Normally I'd be 100% against everything above, because I'm a free market guy to the end, and I don't believe in any governmental intervention, but if there's going to be any, let it be constructive loans instead of gifts, and let it be paid for by the people who caused this.
Are you just listening to George W.? He's very good at doing this, at being an every-man, and I'm sure he's very sincere, but if it stinks it stinks.
20 December 2008 at 8:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
Most rifles can shoot BBs or Pellets. BB's are round and made of copper. Pellets are made of lead and have a flat end and a concave end.
The propulsion they all have in common is pressurized gas, either air or CO2. If it's air, the gun must be pumped (about 10-12 pumps usually does it.) Pistols are more commonly CO2, and require co2 canisters, but there are pump pistols as well. Either way, the report of a round being fired is probably quieter than a balloon being popped. It varies with the gun, but it's nowhere as loud as a conventional gunpowder round. BB's are great at breaking glass because they don't compress on impact, hence they are good at transmitting all of their energy on a very small cross section. She could have heard the "tap" of the bb's impact, then the glass shattering a split second later, that might have been confused for the shot.
On BB Guns
28 October 2008 at 8:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
Hi Dean,
Yes, I have both of those already. Antennas may seem archaic, but Over-the-air HDTV, as well as digital TV is available in most major metro areas to those with an HDTV antenna. In Phoenix you can get most channels digital and about 1/2 dozen in HD, all for free. However, that's Phoenix. I'm trying to find out if anyone in Payson has had success here before I climb up on my roof!
Read more:
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/01/30/ota....
On Over-the-air HDTV in Payson
27 October 2008 at 8:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
What OTA HDTV reception is available in Payson? Anyone had any success with this? Which channels can you get with a normal residential aerial antenna?
On Over-the-air HDTV in Payson
16 October 2008 at 8:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
That's right Susan.
Mine and my wife's votes are sealed and in the mail.
On Here's how I am currently leaning on the propositions.
15 October 2008 at 11:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
TG said:
"It will, of course, be touted as a backlash against gays and lesbians, and to some extent it will be, but it is more in the nature of outrage felt by people who do not want their fundamental institutions undermined and their traditions changed by a federal government which is simply out of control."
Ah yes, I see, so banning gay marriage is a strengthener and defender of marriage. I'll have my popcorn ready to watch the divorce rate plummet and incidence of solid marriages increase.
Look Tom, if you don't want gays to marry, and it's clear that you don't, then just admit it, but don't hide behind some rationalization about marriage's strengthening of society.
TG also said:
"Come on, Chris! You know better than to fiddle around with semantics.
Gee! :-)
You know we aren't banning gay unions, just fixing it so that they won't be called “marriages” and therefore become eligible for tax breaks intended for standard marriage."
I'm not playing semantics games. I referred to gay marriages, and I meant gay marriages. If we ban gay marriages today we will never have empirical evidence to prove or disprove the quality of gay marriages tomorrow, so how will we ever know? That has nothing to do with "unions". A union is not a marriage. Census statistics are not kept on "unions", and there is no divorce rate tracked on "unions". So my question to you still stands.
While you're at it, could you give some specific reference of these "tax breaks" you get for being married, please? I certainly don't recall getting a tax break when I wed, in fact I'm familiar with something called the federal Marriage Tax Penalty, and I'm reminded of it every April.
On Here's how I am currently leaning on the propositions.
15 October 2008 at 4:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
TG said:
"...because I have to shell out $7,000 to sell the house..."
No you don't. It's not mandatory to use a realtor who charges 7%, or that you even use one at all. You're free to go FSBO, find a lower cost realtor, or negotiate. This works with mortgages and negotiating closing costs as well. Just because someone hangs a shingle out doesn't mean you to pay their rate. You can't blame realtors for trying to make a living and charging what the market will bear, blame the people who keep paying the 7%. Sellers can't set market prices alone, it takes a buyer for a transaction to occur. If a buyer pays that $110,000 for that house worth $100,000, they're the dope.
On One big reason why housing prices rise too fast.
9 October 2008 at 8:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
TG said:
"If some time in the vague future there is an accumulation of evidence that any other type of marriage does the same thing, THEN it will be time to add those types of marriage to the list of things that should receive tax breaks."
Tom, if we ban gay marriages in 2008, how will we ever know?
On Here's how I am currently leaning on the propositions.
7 October 2008 at 8:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
I don't understand how the quality of relationships between a man and a woman enters into the discussion about Prop 102. There is nothing in the proposal about the quality of the relationship, only the strict terms of gender.
There's no reason to get caught up in semantics. The semantics of the prop are clear, "one man and a woman". That leaves only two discrete combinations, a man and a man and a woman and a woman, by definition, both gay marriages. I don't know what other possible permutations you might be alluding to. (Unless you want to discuss polygamy.) Anyway, there is not enough empirical evidence yet to rule whether a gay marriage is of any poorer quality than a heterosexual marriage, (and I don't believe in anecdotal arguments, so don't bother). So if that's your only concern, why not give it a shot?
On Here's how I am currently leaning on the propositions.
5 October 2008 at 9:30 p.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
Tom, here are my opinions. We agree on 5 out of 8.
100. NO. The state has too much power to force these transactions, so it's a natural conflict of interest to let them tax this. This is unnecessary.
101 NO. This is preemptive legislation aimed at torpedoing health care reform down the road. It serves no other practical purpose today.
102 NO. When are we going to get past this already? This does nothing to strengthen families. What it does is say to gays "You're not welcome here". If that's what you want, then vote for it, but that's why you're voting for it. There are about 1,000 things I could think of to strengthen families before this.
105 NO. No one likes new taxes, but we can't expect our government to be effective then take the power to levy taxes away from it.
200 NO. This is the wrong type of regulation for a credit business. If you don't like payday loan companies (and who does?) then don't patronize them, but don't try to punish them with legislation. This will either A) drive them under or B) create unrealistic credit scenarios that we will be bailing out next. If you think their rates are usurous, don't use them.
201 NO. I support this in principle, no one should be ripped off by their builder, but don't see how we're going to enforce it. 10 years is a long time. How do you keep them from declaring bankruptcy? Is the state then responsible? Needs more work.
202 NO. The current law is working fine. This is just to satisfy the more extreme element, but will probably end up in a court challenge (which will likely reverse all ground gained to-date.)
300 YES. The deserve it. $30k is not enough.
On Here's how I am currently leaning on the propositions.
28 September 2008 at 8:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
chrisrafter (Christopher Rafter) says…
Tom, I don't "spout". I speak, I ask questions, just as you do. You really need to find a better tactics than the personally dismissive comments, they're clearly not working.
Second, I didn't have to be alive during the Great Depression in order to have AN OPINION here. All I need for that is citizenship and a 1040 form.
It's not being partisan to ask questions. If the plan is solid, then those questions will be answered. It's partisan to NOT ask questions and just go along with what GWB says, because he's always steered us straight in the past, right?
The current (Friday night) bailout plan is a gift, it's a surprise lottery win, when it should be a loan. There should be some strings. With the original plan, Barney Frank had to go and ask for salary limits for executives of investment banks. The pilot of a bankrupt company should get a bailout AND continue to earn $100 million a year?
He had to ASK for that?
So that means someone thought that was OK to NOT have that??
How about making the people who profited from getting us into this mess actually pay for it? How about creating some kind of harsher penalty for those who just "walk away" from upside down mortgages? It shouldn't be just that easy to sacrifice your credit and get out of it. These same people are back at it again anyway once they scrape together some more money and get a "mule" to pose for them at the loan desk.
How about some reform of the capital gains tax to make those who took incredible profits out of their real estate give something back? How about tethering builders and loan officers with some responsibility for building and selling worthless properties. If you built a 120-unit development out in the desert and made a huge profit on every one of those houses, and that community is now 90% in foreclosure, you know what? You owe the rest of us something. Time to give back.
Normally I'd be 100% against everything above, because I'm a free market guy to the end, and I don't believe in any governmental intervention, but if there's going to be any, let it be constructive loans instead of gifts, and let it be paid for by the people who caused this.
Are you just listening to George W.? He's very good at doing this, at being an every-man, and I'm sure he's very sincere, but if it stinks it stinks.
On Let's put aside party affiliations and save the nation.