On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:51:53 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Doesn't matter who is shooting them, the rate at which they are dying
> is much higher than for white people.

Yes. And if someone thinks that the fact that the violent drug
dealers shooting many of them are black means that this is
entirely something that resulted from... flaws in the moral
character of black people... rather than the situation that black
people were put by what white people did to them, well, that
someone is at least badly mistaken, and very likely racist.

This doesn't mean that the drug dealers themselves aren't
also responsible for their own actions.

But it certainly is true that *other* black people aren't even slightly
responsible for them, whereas the difficulties in earning an honest
income black people have (like cities designed so that everyone
_needs_ a car to hold a job) that drive some to crime - plus a "war
on drugs" that then made the drug gangs much more violent to
survive... mean that the white society has created the situation.

Whites are killed by whites, and blacks are killed by blacks...
because the country is still largely segregated. Duh.

John Savard

On 10/06/2022 05:38, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:57:52 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Nobody I know died from it including one aulde farte with cancer.
>> Hell, it didn't manage to do in Trump, but "only the good die young"
>> might apply there.
>
> Because he was President, he got *antibodies* at Walter Reed.
>
> John Savard

And a full time medical team of nine (?) eminent doctors at one of the
best-equipped hospitals in the world. Not many ordinary patients get that.

--
Mike Dworetsky

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 22:46:33 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:21:18 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 18:41:50 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>>>> >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>> >> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>>>> >> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>>> >> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> >> > > >>
>>>> >> > > >>> This news article
>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>> >> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>> >> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>>> >> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>> >> > > >>> John Savard
>>>> >> > > >>
>>>> >> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>>> >> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>>> >> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>>> >> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>>> >> > > >
>>>> >> > > >Seriously?
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>> >> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>> >> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>> >> > > gun rights.
>>>> >> > >
>>>> >> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>> >> > > perfectly normal.
>>>> >> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>> >> > African-American males being shot.
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> In the US:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>>>> >> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [quote]
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>>>> >> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>>>> >> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>>>> >> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> [/quote]
>>>> >>
>>>> >> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>>>> >
>>>> >But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>>>> >be homicides. *And the FBI.
>>>> What _are_ the considered to be then?
>>>>
>>>> Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>>>
>>>Mostly "legitimate self defense".
>>
>>Because they were "in fear for their lives" for no good reason in far
>>too many cases.
>>
>>Note: I have long held that anyone stupid enough to actual /fire a
>>gun/ at a policeman deserves whatever they get. Some self-defense
>>claims are legitimate.
>
>OTOH, there have been cases where it would have done my heart good to
>have the police find that their victim was barricaded with a Vulcan.

A 3" mortar round, aimed properly, would take care of /that/ problem
right quickly.

Or maybe a LAW rocket ... depending on what the sucker is barricaded
with.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 11:02:47 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On 10 Jun 2022 01:19:54 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>My apologies. I remembered you as the citer of a video showing Ukraine
>>attacking Russian territory, but that appears to be incorrect.
>>So now I have no memory of you recently having supported any of your arguments
>>here with cites.
>
>I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>
>"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>
>At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>has been done to Kharkiv.

No boots on the ground -- invading Holy Mother Russia will produce
endless support for the war.

No deep attacks on cities -- a war crime is a war crime no matter who
does it.

But non-ground attacks on logistics infrastructure and/or massing
troops should be allowed.

The fears of the terrorized notwithstanding.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On 2022-06-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2022 20:13:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-06-10, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:06:47 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <el42ahhldqlnamm9lbg56kv1ku63le8qm2@4ax.com>,
>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>>> >> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>>> >> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>>> >> gun rights.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>>> >> perfectly normal.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>>> >African-American males being shot.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>>>>> victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I wasn't trolling; I was pointing out that African-American males are
>>>>being shot at a rate far in excess of their percentage of the population
>>>>and with less publicity than school shootings.
>>>
>>> No doubt you're right on 'less publicity' but then the majority of
>>> black male deaths I would assume are one at a time whereas school
>>> shootings never are.
>>
>>I think you'd be surprised at one on one school shootings.
>>School mass shootings are never one-at-a-time, by definition,
>>but there's lots of local violence and deaths that never get reported
>>nationally. I see a death reported every couple of years around me.
>>
>>National statistics are hard to come by. Federal funders like CDC and
>>NIH are forbidden to spend money on most things related to gun
>>violence.
>
> The FBI isn't. Google "Uniform Crime Reports".

Yes, there are high level statistics, and in this case those
statistics are close to good enough to answer this particular question.

What there aren't are studies that spend the time and manpower
to investigate causes of the shootings. There have been a few local
investigations, but overall, it's tough to find solutions
without knowing the causes.

Chris

>>> Obviously that doesn't justify the deaths but no question there's a
>>> problem and realistically that's not a problem that's going to be
>>> resolved from the top down but rather needs to be from within the
>>> various communities. Starting from the ready availability of weapons.
>>>
>>> When I was a kid fights weren't all THAT uncommon but they were
>>> settled with fists not weapons. Fights are probably inevitable -
>>> fights with lethal weapons almost certainly are NOT inevitable.
>>
>>Again, I think you would be surprised. The Dodd report (1970ish?)
>>surveyed 110 school districts nationally (US, 0.1% of the school
>>districts, but presumably the larger ones) and in just those school
>>districts, the number of school homicides per year increased from 15
>>in 1964 to 26 in 1968. That shouldn't be too far from your time as a
>>kid!
>>
>>The "good old days" had their problems that were not widely pubilcized
>>back then. (Even further back, 1927, school massacre in Bath, Michigan
>>killed 44 (dynamiting school because of high school taxes)).

On 2022-06-11, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
> On 2022-06-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Jun 2022 20:13:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-06-10, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:06:47 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>>><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <el42ahhldqlnamm9lbg56kv1ku63le8qm2@4ax.com>,
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>>>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>>>> >> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>>>> >> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>>>> >> gun rights.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>>>> >> perfectly normal.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>>>> >African-American males being shot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>>>>>> victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wasn't trolling; I was pointing out that African-American males are
>>>>>being shot at a rate far in excess of their percentage of the population
>>>>>and with less publicity than school shootings.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt you're right on 'less publicity' but then the majority of
>>>> black male deaths I would assume are one at a time whereas school
>>>> shootings never are.
>>>
>>>I think you'd be surprised at one on one school shootings.
>>>School mass shootings are never one-at-a-time, by definition,
>>>but there's lots of local violence and deaths that never get reported
>>>nationally. I see a death reported every couple of years around me.
>>>
>>>National statistics are hard to come by. Federal funders like CDC and
>>>NIH are forbidden to spend money on most things related to gun
>>>violence.
>>
>> The FBI isn't. Google "Uniform Crime Reports".
>
> Yes, there are high level statistics, and in this case those
> statistics are close to good enough to answer this particular question.
>
> What there aren't are studies that spend the time and manpower
> to investigate causes of the shootings. There have been a few local
> investigations, but overall, it's tough to find solutions
> without knowing the causes.
>
> Chris

Hmm. it looks like I need to amend this statement. I've been looking
at things like FBI statistics and didn't see what I wanted but didn't
realize that the Department of Homeland Security actually does now
collect direct causes. They still don't do studies of the sort I would
like (as CDC and NIH are forbidden to) but more is being done than I thought.

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/a01
Data are also available on the type of situation associated with
school shootings (including those with and without casualties) as well
as on the location and time period of the shootings. In 2020–21, the
most common known situations associated with school shootings were
escalation of dispute (23 incidents); drive-by (18 incidents);
illegal activity (15 incidents); and intentional property damage (11
incidents). For more than a third of school shootings (52 incidents)
in 2020–21, the situation associated with the shooting was
unknown. The most common locations associated with school shootings
were parking lots (51 incidents), beside or in front of school
buildings (40 incidents), football fields, basketball courts, or
general fields (15 incidents), and school buses (15 incidents). In
terms of when school shootings occurred, there were 33 incidents when
morning or afternoon classes were in session, 4 incidents during
lunchtime, 23 incidents after or before school or during dismissal,
and 7 incidents during a school or sport event. In 2020–21, more than
half of shootings (79 incidents) occurred outside school hours.15

Between 2000–01 and 2020–21, the number of casualties per year as a
result of school shootings ranged from 15 to 185. In 2020–21, there
were 118 casualties (46 deaths and 72 injuries) from school shootings.

Chris

>>>> Obviously that doesn't justify the deaths but no question there's a
>>>> problem and realistically that's not a problem that's going to be
>>>> resolved from the top down but rather needs to be from within the
>>>> various communities. Starting from the ready availability of weapons.
>>>>
>>>> When I was a kid fights weren't all THAT uncommon but they were
>>>> settled with fists not weapons. Fights are probably inevitable -
>>>> fights with lethal weapons almost certainly are NOT inevitable.
>>>
>>>Again, I think you would be surprised. The Dodd report (1970ish?)
>>>surveyed 110 school districts nationally (US, 0.1% of the school
>>>districts, but presumably the larger ones) and in just those school
>>>districts, the number of school homicides per year increased from 15
>>>in 1964 to 26 in 1968. That shouldn't be too far from your time as a
>>>kid!
>>>
>>>The "good old days" had their problems that were not widely pubilcized
>>>back then. (Even further back, 1927, school massacre in Bath, Michigan
>>>killed 44 (dynamiting school because of high school taxes)).

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>>> the planet.
>>>
>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>>>
>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>>>
>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>>>
>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>>
>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>
>The Alberta oil patch.

Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
already produces. Why would it want more?

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:09:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:44:19 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>
>Well, we have the capacity to grow a significant amount
>of food. Also, we have a lot of nickel, which is a strategically
>useful metal.
>
>But I think that's really the wrong question. Canada has
>people in it, and Putin won't be happy until he has enslaved
>every last human being on Earth. Although he may have
>to settle for enslaving those that Xi Jinping hasn't taken.

So you're saying that Canadians can't fight was well as Afghanis?

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:02:12 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 22:46:33 -0400, J. Clarke
><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:21:18 -0700, Paul S Person
>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 18:41:50 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>> >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>> >> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> >> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>>>> >> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>> >> > > >>
>>>>> >> > > >>> This news article
>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>> >> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>> >> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>>>> >> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>> >> > > >>> John Savard
>>>>> >> > > >>
>>>>> >> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>>>> >> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>>>> >> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>>>> >> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>> >> > > >Seriously?
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>>> >> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>>> >> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>>> >> > > gun rights.
>>>>> >> > >
>>>>> >> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>>> >> > > perfectly normal.
>>>>> >> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>>> >> > African-American males being shot.
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> In the US:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>>>>> >> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> [quote]
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>>>>> >> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>>>>> >> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>>>>> >> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> [/quote]
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>>>>> >
>>>>> >But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>>>>> >be homicides. *And the FBI.
>>>>> What _are_ the considered to be then?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>>>>
>>>>Mostly "legitimate self defense".
>>>
>>>Because they were "in fear for their lives" for no good reason in far
>>>too many cases.
>>>
>>>Note: I have long held that anyone stupid enough to actual /fire a
>>>gun/ at a policeman deserves whatever they get. Some self-defense
>>>claims are legitimate.
>>
>>OTOH, there have been cases where it would have done my heart good to
>>have the police find that their victim was barricaded with a Vulcan.
>
>A 3" mortar round, aimed properly, would take care of /that/ problem
>right quickly.
>
>Or maybe a LAW rocket ... depending on what the sucker is barricaded
>with.

Fat lot of good either of those do the cops who first come through the
door.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:05:27 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 12:02:53 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:
>
>> I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>> atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>> monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>>
>> "I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>>
>> At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>> has been done to Kharkiv.
>
>Oh, it wouldn't bother me in a _moral_ sense. After committing aggression,
>Russia should be made to surrender unconditionally, and if that means it
>has to be as devastated as Germany after World War II, that in itself is no
>problem.
>
>However, what Hitler didn't have that Putin does have is *nukes*.
>
>Which means that if a Ukrainian attack hits Russia *while we are giving
>aid to Ukraine* bad things could happen to US. So Ukraine needs to
>only defend itself within its own territory to keep us giving aid to it; if
>they attacked Russian territory, we would have to disconnect from
>Ukraine - and doing so immediately might not be enough.
>
>There is a vast difference between "this is wicked" and "this is not
>wise in a practical sense"; it's not fair to assume that other people
>have those things confused when you criticize them for recommending
>against certain actions.
>
>If you can figure out how to take Putin's dangerous toys away, I'll
>be fine with Russia being devastated.

Sooner or later somebody is going to have to take the hit to disarm a
loon who has nuclear weapons. If the mighty unconquerable Russia is
the first to go, that might just serve as a useful object lesson to
the lesser tinpot dictators.

On 11 Jun 2022 20:40:37 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>On 2022-06-11, J Clarke <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10 Jun 2022 20:13:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-06-10, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 22:06:47 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>>><robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In article <el42ahhldqlnamm9lbg56kv1ku63le8qm2@4ax.com>,
>>>>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 07 Jun 2022 09:52:19 -0700, Robert Woodward
>>>>>> <robertaw@drizzle.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>>>> >> Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>>>> >> school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>>>> >> gun rights.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>>>> >> perfectly normal.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>>>> >African-American males being shot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>>>>>> victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>I wasn't trolling; I was pointing out that African-American males are
>>>>>being shot at a rate far in excess of their percentage of the population
>>>>>and with less publicity than school shootings.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt you're right on 'less publicity' but then the majority of
>>>> black male deaths I would assume are one at a time whereas school
>>>> shootings never are.
>>>
>>>I think you'd be surprised at one on one school shootings.
>>>School mass shootings are never one-at-a-time, by definition,
>>>but there's lots of local violence and deaths that never get reported
>>>nationally. I see a death reported every couple of years around me.
>>>
>>>National statistics are hard to come by. Federal funders like CDC and
>>>NIH are forbidden to spend money on most things related to gun
>>>violence.
>>
>> The FBI isn't. Google "Uniform Crime Reports".
>
>Yes, there are high level statistics, and in this case those
>statistics are close to good enough to answer this particular question.
>
>What there aren't are studies that spend the time and manpower
>to investigate causes of the shootings. There have been a few local
>investigations, but overall, it's tough to find solutions
>without knowing the causes.

If the medical establishment would go in looking for causes of
_murders_ rather than restricting themselves to _shootings_ they would
likely not have gotten their plug pulled. But the way they went about
it is was pretty clear that they weren't interested in saving lives,
they just wanted to prove that guns were bad.

>Chris
>
>>>> Obviously that doesn't justify the deaths but no question there's a
>>>> problem and realistically that's not a problem that's going to be
>>>> resolved from the top down but rather needs to be from within the
>>>> various communities. Starting from the ready availability of weapons.
>>>>
>>>> When I was a kid fights weren't all THAT uncommon but they were
>>>> settled with fists not weapons. Fights are probably inevitable -
>>>> fights with lethal weapons almost certainly are NOT inevitable.
>>>
>>>Again, I think you would be surprised. The Dodd report (1970ish?)
>>>surveyed 110 school districts nationally (US, 0.1% of the school
>>>districts, but presumably the larger ones) and in just those school
>>>districts, the number of school homicides per year increased from 15
>>>in 1964 to 26 in 1968. That shouldn't be too far from your time as a
>>>kid!
>>>
>>>The "good old days" had their problems that were not widely pubilcized
>>>back then. (Even further back, 1927, school massacre in Bath, Michigan
>>>killed 44 (dynamiting school because of high school taxes)).

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:16:05 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:51:53 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter who is shooting them, the rate at which they are dying
>> is much higher than for white people.
>
>Yes. And if someone thinks that the fact that the violent drug
>dealers shooting many of them are black means that this is
>entirely something that resulted from... flaws in the moral
>character of black people... rather than the situation that black
>people were put by what white people did to them, well, that
>someone is at least badly mistaken, and very likely racist.
>
>This doesn't mean that the drug dealers themselves aren't
>also responsible for their own actions.
>
>But it certainly is true that *other* black people aren't even slightly
>responsible for them, whereas the difficulties in earning an honest
>income black people have (like cities designed so that everyone
>_needs_ a car to hold a job) that drive some to crime - plus a "war
>on drugs" that then made the drug gangs much more violent to
>survive... mean that the white society has created the situation.
>
>Whites are killed by whites, and blacks are killed by blacks...
>because the country is still largely segregated. Duh.

Why are you getting so defensive? You aren't even black. I doubt you
have ever _seen_ a black person in the flesh given that you live in
the Great White North.

On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>>>>>> the planet.
>>>>
>>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>>>>
>>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>>>>
>>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>>>>
>>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>>>
>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>>
>> The Alberta oil patch.
>
> Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
> already produces. Why would it want more?

Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
products.

Lynn

On 10 Jun 2022 20:13:50 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

>Again, I think you would be surprised. The Dodd report (1970ish?)
>surveyed 110 school districts nationally (US, 0.1% of the school
>districts, but presumably the larger ones) and in just those school
>districts, the number of school homicides per year increased from 15
>in 1964 to 26 in 1968. That shouldn't be too far from your time as a
>kid!
>
>The "good old days" had their problems that were not widely pubilcized
>back then. (Even further back, 1927, school massacre in Bath, Michigan
>killed 44 (dynamiting school because of high school taxes)).

Don't know about that but my graduation class lost 3 members 2 months
after graduation in a DUI related crash on a major bridge.

I got the "privilege" of being photographer for our last class reunion
where among other things I got to photograph every PowerPoint page in
the "In Memoriam.PPT" presentation. Which ranged all the way from
these 3 all the way to one 3 weeks previously. My wife kept me
supplied with tissues as she could see I (a) knew nearly all of them
and (b) hadn't heard about the passings of some of them.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:11:33 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>>I continue to be annoyed at those who would claim that despite all the
>>atrocities Putin & Co. have done on Ukrainian territory it's a
>>monstrous crime for any Ukrainian counter-attack to land on Russia.
>>
>>"I can hit you all I like but you can't fight back" - oh really?
>>
>>At this point it wouldn't bother me at all if they did to Moscow what
>>has been done to Kharkiv.
>
>No boots on the ground -- invading Holy Mother Russia will produce
>endless support for the war.
>
>No deep attacks on cities -- a war crime is a war crime no matter who
>does it.
>
>But non-ground attacks on logistics infrastructure and/or massing
>troops should be allowed.
>
Our local newspaper had a picture of a high school girl who purchased
her grad dress (which she was wearing in the cover photo) two days
before the invasion. In the picture of her in her dress in front of
the school it was clear the school was burnt out rubble.

From the form of the rubble it looked pretty much like a North
American high school so one wonders how the heck the Russians could
have confused it with something other than it was. To me it was clear
they DID know and didn't give a damn.

While I understand what you mean about likely Russian response to
ground attacks on Russian soil, I would certainly shed no tears over
damage equal to what they've inflicted so far. Even if the shooting
stopped tomorrow it would have set Ukraine back 20 years and I for one
am convinced that material damage to their infrastructure matters more
in Moscow than actual gain of territory.

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>But I think that's really the wrong question. Canada has
>>people in it, and Putin won't be happy until he has enslaved
>>every last human being on Earth. Although he may have
>>to settle for enslaving those that Xi Jinping hasn't taken.
>
>So you're saying that Canadians can't fight was well as Afghanis?

I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
years until Biden decided to cut and run

On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 22:51:49 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>>You are trolling - it is well known that the vast majority of black
>>victims of gun violence in the US are shot by other blacks.
>>
>>But then one is too many right?
>
>Doesn't matter who is shooting them, the rate at which they are dying
>is much higher than for white people.

(>> = me)

My point is simply that BLM and their fanbois seem to not give a damn
(or if they do only a little one) when the shooter is a black person -
which it is a LOT of the time. (In fact a large majority of the time)

I say one dead shooting victim is too many(of any color but especially
black / brown which is what we're discussing right now) and ask what
they are willing to do about it?

On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:

> Why are you getting so defensive? You aren't even black. I doubt you
> have ever _seen_ a black person in the flesh given that you live in
> the Great White North.

Black people do live in Canada. By and large, they are responsible
law-abiding citizens - although a shooting, which killed several
people at an Ethiopian restaurant, happened within the last few
months a few blocks from where I live.

Due to the police in Edmonton having a helicopter which was at
the right place at the right time, suspects were arrested within a
couple of days.

Aside from refugees from the Ethiopian conflict - several shops of
theirs, some with Amharic script on them, are within blocks of where
I live - Canada has many black immigrants from the Carribean.

We even have a very few black people, living primarily in Eastern
Canada, whose ancestors were originally enslaved here in Canada.

John Savard

On Saturday, June 11, 2022 at 11:45:11 PM UTC-6, The Horny Goat wrote:

> My point is simply that BLM and their fanbois seem to not give a damn
> (or if they do only a little one) when the shooter is a black person -
> which it is a LOT of the time. (In fact a large majority of the time)

Like white people, black people are human, and have human flaws.

So if a black person is killed by a white person, it's very easy to rally
all black people in opposition to it.

If a black person is killed by another black person, it might be more
complicated. Yes, they've killed a black person. So they're criminals.
But what are you going to do? Call for more intense police presence
and law enforcement in our neighborhoods? When the agenda of the
police seems to be to turn our neighborhoods into a war zone in the
War on Drugs?

So the only thing one can "do" about it is call for more government
handouts to black people so no black child will ever be tempted to
enter into dealing drugs for a living. That you can get most black
people to agree to.

Since both black people and white people are operating from a
self-interested agenda in these matters, solutions have been
slow in coming. Perpetuating the white self-interested agenda,
and not listening to black voices, even if they have to be taken
with a grain of salt too, isn't the way to make progress.

John Savard

On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> >>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
> >>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
> >>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
> >>>>>> the planet.
> >>>>
> >>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
> >>>>
> >>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
> >>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
> >>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
> >>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
> >>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
> >>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
> >>>
> >>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
> >>
> >> The Alberta oil patch.
> >
> > Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
> > already produces. Why would it want more?
> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
> products.

Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
to Murmansk and Vladivostok.

Where is this lightering talking place?

Pt

On 12/06/2022 00.41, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>> So you're saying that Canadians can't fight was well as Afghanis?
>
> I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
> years until Biden decided to cut and run

Is this the latest line from The Ministry of Truth?

The surrender was negotiated in 2020, before Biden was elected:
<https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51692546>

--
Michael F. Stemper
Exodus 22:21

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 07:13:11 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, June 12, 2022 at 12:11:03 AM UTC-4, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 6/11/2022 8:59 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> > On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 23:43:01 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> > <lynnmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 6/10/2022 9:44 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:29:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:27:37 AM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 15:40:55 -0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>> >>>>> Nicoll) wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> For reasons that escape me, our national
>> >>>>>> policy seems to be hopeful optimism about US intentions, rather than
>> >>>>>> the more prudent option of acquiring enough nuclear weapons to resurface
>> >>>>>> the planet.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> What, you expect the US to invade Canada?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well, I suppose that's _possible_ if much of the U.S. becomes uninhabitable.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> At least, we're likely to have a refugee problem.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> However, I think that James Nicoll's "prudent option" is a good idea for
>> >>>> Canada even if the United States would never think about doing such
>> >>>> a terrible thing as invading Canada. Because given the chance of a new
>> >>>> Republican President, and other world events, the possibility of the United
>> >>>> States not lifting a finger when, say, Russia invades Canada does not seem
>> >>>> to me to be _completely_ far-fetched.
>> >>>
>> >>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>> >>
>> >> The Alberta oil patch.
>> >
>> > Right now Russia is having trouble finding customers for the oil it
>> > already produces. Why would it want more?
>> Russia is selling everything they produce. The Indians are buying the
>> spare barrels for 65 cents on the dollar. The Indians are using
>> lightering from Russian tankers to Indian tankers at the international
>> water line. Then the Indians refine the crude into gasoline, diesel,
>> kerosene, and jp4/8. Then they sell it to the USA and Europe as refined
>> products.
>
>Do you have a link for that? Russia can't use its Black Sea ports, the Baltic
>ports can't handle large tankers, and there's insufficient pipeline connectivity
>to Murmansk and Vladivostok.

Well put.

But he could be talking about tankers already en route when the war
started. In which case the supply should eventually dry up.

>Where is this lightering talking place?
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 09:58:43 -0500, "Michael F. Stemper"
<michael.stemper@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 12/06/2022 00.41, The Horny Goat wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> So you're saying that Canadians can't fight was well as Afghanis?
>>
>> I dunno - our guys seemed to manage in Afghanistan just fine for 14
>> years until Biden decided to cut and run
>
>Is this the latest line from The Ministry of Truth?
>
>The surrender was negotiated in 2020, before Biden was elected:
><https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51692546>

He can't admit /that/.

It would be blaming Trump.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:00:14 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 00:09:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
><jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>On Friday, June 10, 2022 at 8:44:19 PM UTC-6, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> What does Canada have that Russia _wants_?
>>
>>Well, we have the capacity to grow a significant amount
>>of food. Also, we have a lot of nickel, which is a strategically
>>useful metal.
>>
>>But I think that's really the wrong question. Canada has
>>people in it, and Putin won't be happy until he has enslaved
>>every last human being on Earth. Although he may have
>>to settle for enslaving those that Xi Jinping hasn't taken.
>
>So you're saying that Canadians can't fight was well as Afghanis?

The Afghanis had Western support.

By the time Putin gets to Canada, there won't be a West any more.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 22:01:50 -0400, J. Clarke
<jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 09:02:12 -0700, Paul S Person
><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Jun 2022 22:46:33 -0400, J. Clarke
>><jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 08 Jun 2022 09:21:18 -0700, Paul S Person
>>><psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 18:41:50 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
>>>><petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 6:18:09 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 14:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
>>>>>> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >On Tuesday, 7 June 2022 at 19:59:57 UTC+1, Kevrob wrote:
>>>>>> >> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 12:52:24 PM UTC-4, Robert Woodward wrote:
>>>>>> >> > In article <b7vu9hl01tjoftga0...@4ax.com>,
>>>>>> >> > Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> > > On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 08:42:16 -0700, Alan <nuh...@nope.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>> >> > > >On 2022-06-06 1:04 a.m., Charles Packer wrote:
>>>>>> >> > > >> On Sun, 05 Jun 2022 03:09:24 -0700, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>> >> > > >>
>>>>>> >> > > >>> This news article
>>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>>> >> > > >>> https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article262129007.html
>>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>>> >> > > >>> shows why it was indeed extremely serious, and yet it was possible for
>>>>>> >> > > >>> some people not to perceive this fact.
>>>>>> >> > > >>>
>>>>>> >> > > >>> John Savard
>>>>>> >> > > >>
>>>>>> >> > > >> It was quite possible to perceive that the pandemic was less
>>>>>> >> > > >> serious than the news media made it out to be. People were dying
>>>>>> >> > > >> of other stuff too, as they usually do. The key factor in
>>>>>> >> > > >> perception is the excess death rate of one's own social circle.
>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>> >> > > >"People were dying of other stuff too, as they usually do."
>>>>>> >> > > >
>>>>>> >> > > >Seriously?
>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>> >> > > If I understand what I have been reading, some poll found that 40% (of
>>>>>> >> > > Republicans or Texans or whatever) believe that /kids being shot in
>>>>>> >> > > school/ is something we will just have to get used to to protect their
>>>>>> >> > > gun rights.
>>>>>> >> > >
>>>>>> >> > > So some people are willing to tolerate all sorts of "other stuff" as
>>>>>> >> > > perfectly normal.
>>>>>> >> > After all, they are willing to tolerate much greater numbers of
>>>>>> >> > African-American males being shot.
>>>>>> >> >
>>>>>> >> In the US:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Most white victims are shot by whites.
>>>>>> >> Most black victims are shot by blacks.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> [quote]
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Between 1980-2008, the U.S. Department of Justice found that 84% of white victims were
>>>>>> >> killed by white offenders and 93% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> In 2018, the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that 81% of white victims were killed
>>>>>> >> by white offenders, and 89% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> In 2017, the FBI reported almost identical figures — 80% of white victims were killed by
>>>>>> >> white offenders, and 88% of Black victims were killed by Black offenders.
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> [/quote]
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/29/fact-check-meme-shows-incorrect-homicide-stats-race/5739522002/
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >But most shootings by cops* aren't considered to
>>>>>> >be homicides. *And the FBI.
>>>>>> What _are_ the considered to be then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hint--in US law, "homicide" != "unlawful killing".
>>>>>
>>>>>Mostly "legitimate self defense".
>>>>
>>>>Because they were "in fear for their lives" for no good reason in far
>>>>too many cases.
>>>>
>>>>Note: I have long held that anyone stupid enough to actual /fire a
>>>>gun/ at a policeman deserves whatever they get. Some self-defense
>>>>claims are legitimate.
>>>
>>>OTOH, there have been cases where it would have done my heart good to
>>>have the police find that their victim was barricaded with a Vulcan.
>>
>>A 3" mortar round, aimed properly, would take care of /that/ problem
>>right quickly.
>>
>>Or maybe a LAW rocket ... depending on what the sucker is barricaded
>>with.
>
>Fat lot of good either of those do the cops who first come through the
>door.

But they /do/ solve the problem for all the others.

Well, provided they have enough sense to pull back and fight a
military weapon with another military weapon instead of pop-guns.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."