On 2/15/2022 6:15 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Frank, every single country in the world with mixed cultures has violence issues. Most much worse that then US.

Tom, you need to look up a place called Canada. Read and learn - or at
least, attempt to. (But get help with your reading comprehension.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/15/2022 4:50 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 7:46:03 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/14/2022 11:20 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>>>>>> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>>>>> Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>>>>> This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>>>> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>>>> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>>>> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>>>> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>>>> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>>>>
>>>> Prone with the M1
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>>>> Standing with the M1
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>>>> Girl shooting Trap
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
>>>
>> OK I clicked the last video link. She actualy is shooting
>> trap. And she's good at it. What was your objection?

> The "girl" part of John's description. I don't know how old you are Andy. But I am positive even the oldest of old folks on earth would not use the word "girl" to describe the person who shot trap in the video.
>

Saturday evening I walked into a restaurant with girlfriend
and said, 'Baby you're the cutest girl in the place.' She
did not object. She's 74.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/15/2022 5:52 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:37:46 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/15/2022 1:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2022 2:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as scale and scope, the history of suffering
>>>> subjugation and destruction of unarmed populations is well
>>>> known. No thanks.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Are you worried the Canadians will invade and subjugate
>>> us? Canadians seem to do fine - better than us - with much
>>> more logical gun policies (and much less paranoia).
>>>
>>> Or did you seriously think Obama was going to take away all
>>> your guns?
>>>
>> Canadian citizens have their own new and large problems.
>>
>> Mr Trudeau today invoked National Emergency powers rather
>> than relent in his various population control orders:
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-cabinet-1.6350734
>
> Quotes from the article:
> "This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs and restoring confidence in our institutions," he said." Trudeau said this.
>
> "Interim Conservative Leader Candice Bergen accused Trudeau of dividing Canadians.
> "We've seen the prime minister wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians he doesn't agree with and by doing so he creates so many barriers in terms of trying to solve this problem," she said."
> Trump?????????????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> That's the brief anodyne report. Here are the chilling details:
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-explainer-1.6351504
>>
>> A perusal of the writings, minutes and arguments of the
>> Framers shows nothing about targets or hunting in relation
>> to our beloved 2d. The keyword is 'tyranny'.

Yes that Trudeau quotation is damning enough but he went on.

Conrad Black had an excellent analysis in The Sun on Sunday,
noting that the prime takeaway was that this shows the utter
failure of the Canadian political system. The Administration
doesn't have a clue and the Opposition doesn't have a spine.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 03:02:03 -0800 (PST), "funkma...@hotmail.com"
<funkmasterxx@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 4:26:43 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 22:15:34 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:35:04 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 21:20:11 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >> >> > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>> >> >> >> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>> >> >> >Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>> >> >> >This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>> >> >> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>> >> >> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>> >> >> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>> >> >> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>> >> >> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Prone with the M1
>> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>> >> >> Standing with the M1
>> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>> >> >> Girl shooting Trap
>> >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John B.
>> >> >
>> >> >Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
>> >> Yes, I did think of that when I wrote it, I actually tried "Lady", and
>> >> some how that didn't sound right and "Female" or "Old Gal" didn't seem
>> >> to work either so I settled on "Girl" (:-)
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> >I think "Woman shooting Trap" would be the proper term to use. Keep it as generic and non descriptive as possible. When I saw "Girl shooting Trap" in the description, I was looking forward to a young, pretty, slim, trim "girl" shooting trap. I was very disappointed watching the video.
>> Well maybe. But the other day I read that "Negro" is a derogative term
>> so I'm a bit gun shy talking to USians. It seems, from what I read,
>> that the correct term in the U.S. is Afro-American, or perhaps
>> African-American, which makes me wonder about inhabitants of South
>> Africa (for example) are they Afro-Africans?
>>
>> But more to the point what does one call people now. If I refer to
>> Andrew, or Frank as an "American" am I doing wrong? Should it be
>> Italian-American and Polish-American? And of course I am a WASP (:-)
>>
>> And even worse I read that women are no longer Miss or Missus and are
>> now "Ms" and I can't even pronounce that (:-)
>> --
>hmm...did you think maybe of dropping the gender all together? I mean, you wrote "prone with the M1" and "standing with the M1", you didn't use any gender with either of those. Why was it important to include gender in "shooting trap"?
>"Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich
>

Well, yes, I suppose that one could ignore gender... but that begets
another problem. "I married a (blank)"?? I tried that out on my wife
and she just looked at me and sort of shook her head, and I heard her
talking to her sister a bit later and she said something about
"Well... he is getting old..."
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:35:01 -0800 (PST), Tim R
<timothy42bach@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:21:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> But given the high level of crime in the U.S., will banning guns
>> effect the homicide rate by a large percentage. Certainly the
>> anti-gunners claim it will. Which may be an over simplistic notion.
>>
>
>As a direct effect, no. And especially if the ban is directed at a particular type of weapon that seems scary but is rarely used in homicide. (I can't tell you how often I've heard this conversation: "We've got to do something!" "but, that won't actually have any effect because..." "I don't care, we've gotta do SOMETHING!")
>
>Indirectly, possibly. Here's why I think that. Culture always trumps regulation and enforcement. The US is a culture that solves problems with violence including guns. Legislation with little direct effect can sometimes be part of a culture shift. It's annoying but possible. An example is the European law against spanking.
>
>The first thing I'd do to reduce gun violence is get rid of the death penalty. Our legal and justice system has codified into our psyche that killing people is a good way to solve problems. That wouldn't have a large effect immediately, but it can be a part of an overall strategy to change some of our habits. Remember when they asked Ghandi what he thought about western civilization, he replied, "it would be a very good idea."
>
>Everyone wants an easy fix. Not all problems have easy fixes.

Well... you have to admit that the death sentence serves to reduce
prison over crowding (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 07:45:58 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/14/2022 11:20 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>>>>> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>>>> Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>>>> This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>>> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>>> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>>> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>>> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>>> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>>>
>>> Prone with the M1
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>>> Standing with the M1
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>>> Girl shooting Trap
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
>>
>
>OK I clicked the last video link. She actualy is shooting
>trap. And she's good at it. What was your objection?

He was commenting on my use of the word "Girl" and I had explained
that I was a bit mystified at what to call females in the U.S. as I
had read that the use of Miss and Missus were no longer considered
polite and the proper, socially correct, modern, term was "Ms" which I
can't figure out how to pronounce.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:13:31 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:35:04 AM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:21:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> > But given the high level of crime in the U.S., will banning guns
>> > effect the homicide rate by a large percentage. Certainly the
>> > anti-gunners claim it will. Which may be an over simplistic notion.
>> >
>> As a direct effect, no. And especially if the ban is directed at a particular type of weapon that seems scary but is rarely used in homicide. (I can't tell you how often I've heard this conversation: "We've got to do something!" "but, that won't actually have any effect because..." "I don't care, we've gotta do SOMETHING!")
>>
>> Indirectly, possibly. Here's why I think that. Culture always trumps regulation and enforcement. The US is a culture that solves problems with violence including guns. Legislation with little direct effect can sometimes be part of a culture shift. It's annoying but possible. An example is the European law against spanking.
>>
>> The first thing I'd do to reduce gun violence is get rid of the death penalty. Our legal and justice system has codified into our psyche that killing people is a good way to solve problems. That wouldn't have a large effect immediately, but it can be a part of an overall strategy to change some of our habits. Remember when they asked Ghandi what he thought about western civilization, he replied, "it would be a very good idea."
>>
>> Everyone wants an easy fix. Not all problems have easy fixes.
>
>The 2nd Amendment has been put in place specifically for the problems that we presently have - a government that is the enemy of the people and the Constitution. But over and over and over, the left has used tactics to put the fear of guns into the younger generation in the hopes of being able to get rid of the one thing that prevents the government from absolute tyranny. Look at what Trudeau has just done - proclaimed an entirely peaceful protest to be essentially the opening volley of a war. Biden CANNOT do this here and if he tried I would not want to be a National Guard member. If he tried to use the military what would occur is that the entire Marine Corp would immediately change sides to the conservatives. As would the Army Rangers and the Navy Seals. These people take their oaths to support the Constitution of the United States to heart. Any officer ordering a Marine to fire upon civilians would immediately find himself either shot or taken into custody pending Courts Marshal
>for Treason and THEN shot.

And, as usual out boy Tommy has his head up his arse as he states

"Any officer ordering a Marine to fire upon civilians would
immediately find himself either shot or taken into custody pending
Courts Marshal"

Really? Lets see:

1863: The New York City Draft Riots
Both militia and regular forces called out to surprises the riot
deaths - 119–120
Injuries 2,000

1932: Disbanding the "Bonus Army"
Troops led by Brig. Gen. Perry L. Miles and accompanied by Gen.
Douglas MacArthur, drove out the demonstrators and destroyed their
encampments, using tanks and tear gas. One veteran was shot to death,
and several veterans and policemen were wounded.

1967: Detroit's 12th Street Riot
National Guard. and the 82d and 101st Airborne.
43 dead

1967: Newark Riots
National Guard was deployed
Deaths - 26 with hundreds injured.

1968: Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Murdered
Restoring the rule of law in the nation's capital required more than
13,600 armed soldiers, the largest military occupation of a city since
the Civil War.
Death(s) 43
Injuries 3,000+

1992: Los Angeles Riots
every Los Angeles law enforcement officer, 10,000 California National
Guard troops and hundreds of United States Marines to restore order
Death(s) 63
Injuries 2,383

Or... to put it another way, Tommy, you are full of the Brown Stuff.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/15/2022 8:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/15/2022 5:52 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:37:46 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2022 1:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2022 2:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As far as scale and scope, the history of suffering
>>>>> subjugation and destruction of unarmed populations is well
>>>>> known. No thanks.
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. Are you worried the Canadians will invade and subjugate
>>>> us? Canadians seem to do fine - better than us - with much
>>>> more logical gun policies (and much less paranoia).
>>>>
>>>> Or did you seriously think Obama was going to take away all
>>>> your guns?
>>>>
>>> Canadian citizens have their own new and large problems.
>>>
>>> Mr Trudeau today invoked National Emergency powers rather
>>> than relent in his various population control orders:
>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-cabinet-1.6350734
>>
>> Quotes from the article:
>> "This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs and
>> restoring confidence in our institutions," he said."  Trudeau said this.
>>
>> "Interim Conservative Leader Candice Bergen accused Trudeau of
>> dividing Canadians.
>> "We've seen the prime minister wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians
>> he doesn't agree with and by doing so he creates so many barriers in
>> terms of trying to solve this problem," she said."
>> Trump?????????????
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That's the brief anodyne report. Here are the chilling details:
>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-explainer-1.6351504
>>>
>>> A perusal of the writings, minutes and arguments of the
>>> Framers shows nothing about targets or hunting in relation
>>> to our beloved 2d. The keyword is 'tyranny'.
>
>
> Yes that Trudeau quotation is damning enough but he went on.
>
> Conrad Black had an excellent analysis in The Sun on Sunday, noting that
> the prime takeaway was that this shows the utter failure of the Canadian
> political system. The Administration doesn't have a clue and the
> Opposition doesn't have a spine.

"Utter failure of the Canadian political system"?

That's more than a little harsh. To me, "utter failure of a political
system" is something like Mogadishu, not Canada.

I expect that the trucks will get towed or driven away, commerce and
manufacturing will resume, most Canadians will continue to think the
protesters are assholes, some people who let law and order slip will get
pink slips, and Canada will be just fine.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 08:19:34 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
<cyclintom@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:46:03 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/14/2022 11:20 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>> >>>> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>> >>> Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>> >>> This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>> >> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>> >> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>> >> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>> >> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>> >> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>> >>
>> >> Prone with the M1
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>> >> Standing with the M1
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>> >> Girl shooting Trap
>> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> > Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
>> >
>> OK I clicked the last video link. She actualy is shooting
>> trap. And she's good at it. What was your objection?
>
>Russell and Flunky have the idea that a woman can do anything a man can. This was the same BS by which they were attempting to put women into combat. They do not have the physical strength and fortitude to protect themselves in such conditions and hence become a burden upon the men who of needs must then protect them.
>
>These guys have never fired a 12 gauge or high powered rifle and yet are pretending knowledge they don't have. I have never seen woman, even good trap shooters fire even a full box of 12 gauge and trap shot are light. I think that they more commonly were shooting 20 gauge. It fit their physique much better.

Nope Tommy, firstly I posted a video of a woman shooting trap and
secondly Trap rules allow a maximum gauge of 12 and nobody uses
anything smaller as to do so would handicap the shooter.

And here's a video of the women's world cup and one of those girls is
19 years old.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIFFX4B2r3Y

A question for you.
Why do you persist in talking about things that you so obviously don't
know anything about?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 12:29:19 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/14/2022 10:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:59:46 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 16:04:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As I've pointed out repeatedly, the AR platform has several features
>>>>> that are optimized for combat situations. Compared to typical hunting
>>>>> rifles, it is more compact, lighter weight, has a bigger magazine
>>>>> capacity which can be easily expanded to ludicrous size, shoots rounds
>>>>> that are themselves light weight so more can be carried, has a pistol
>>>>> grip intended to keep control even when running, dodging, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The platform was originally designed with that combat use in mind. And
>>>>> none of those features are particularly useful for any other purpose,
>>>>> except _pretending_ to that use at a shooting range. Or just looking macho.
>>>>
>>>> But Frank... yes you can buy 30 round magazines for AR type rifles...
>>>> and you can buy 5 round magazines. And, contrary to your arguments it
>>>> is used extensively for target shooting as well as hunting ...
>>>
>>> 30 round magazines seem to be the most typical. If ARs were absolutely
>>> restricted to five round magazines, I wouldn't mind them quite so much.
>>> Five rounds is fine for legitimate uses. 30 rounds is for battle.
>>>
>>> Do people target shoot ARs? Of course. But they're typically not
>>> practicing for hunting, because the gun isn't the most effective type
>>> for hunting. Nobody says "Grab your AR and lets get us some rabbits."
>>> Nobody says "Let's set our AR sights for 500 yards and go hunt elk."
>>>
>>> I believe most people who target shoot ARs have subconscious fantasies
>>> of blowing away The Other Guys. But only if it should become necessary,
>>> of course!
>>
>> Frank, reality is that the demon AR type rifles, that seem to terrify
>> you...
>
>Let's stop there. AR's don't terrify me any more than Tom Kunich does. I
>put ARs in the same category as the several macho pickup trucks I noted
>during our long-ish drive yesterday.
>
>The pickup trucks don't terrify me. They inspire mockery. I saw
>spotlessly clean trucks even now, when most vehicles here are covered
>with salt spray. Trucks that factory stylists purposely designed to look
>intimidating ("Like it's coming for you" is a direct quote of an
>industry guy). Trucks that then got jacked up an additional foot or so.
>And then had oversized tires and rims added, that stick out six inches
>beyond the body work on each side. Trucks being driven with their bright
>headlights on, all the time. Trucks with loud exhausts. These are ALWAYS
>the type of truck that "rolls coal," the ones that have been purposely
>modified to blow clouds of smoke at cyclists and others. These are
>ALWAYS the type of truck that have blocked the charging stations of
>electric cars.
>
>Yes, pickup trucks have utility in some situations. But the dudes
>driving those modified show-off things are not hauling big hay bales or
>towing their farm tractors. If they were, the trucks wouldn't be so
>shiny. They are like the first guy in our town that had one - a
>seriously undersized guy with a huge need to compensate, to look and
>feel tough.
>
>I think people who fetishize their ARs or their huge pickup trucks are
>both compensating. I think "I can fire thirty rounds in ten seconds" is
>in the same category as "I can run your little car over if you don't get
>out of my way."

Really Frank? Or just your imagination?

I ask as, I'm guessing here as I've never actually counted them, but
I'd say that as many as half of the houses along "my" street have a
pickup parked in front of them - usually a Isuzu but some Toyota. In
fact I've got a 25 year old Isuzu myself.

You mean that all these "family men" are macho monsters? With the wife
and babe in arms in the front seat? Amazing!
By the way, since I had the pacemaker installed the Cardiologist
recommends that I don't drive so my wife uses "my" pickup occasionally
to haul dirt for her plants. I'm sure that she will enjoy being called
:macho".

Frank, I believe that you are turning into a bigot.
bigot ~ noun
A prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from
his own.

So far we've got the AR type rifles and now the pickups and there was
the light weight bicycles and electric shifters.

What's next?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 13:21:36 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/14/2022 8:50 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Feb 2022 11:42:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/13/2022 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/13/2022 12:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> You're giving the advantages applicable to a combat weapon.
>>>>>> What's the advantage of making combat weapons available to every
>>>>>> fan of shoot-em-up video games? Is it that they can have more fun
>>>>>> "pretending" while they shoot at silhouette targets?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does that advantage really outweigh the proven risk of multiple mass
>>>>>> shootings, of risk to law enforcement officers, of risk to random bystanders?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do so many other countries disagree? How do Canadians even manage?
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>> I think that the real point is that the U.S. Constitution - the basic
>>>> law of the land - assures the citizenry the right to own and bare
>>>> arms. I'm sure that some would wish that law didn't exist but it does.
>>>> And, I might add, it has been tested by the Supreme Court and, so far,
>>>> it remains in place.
>>>
>>> You're oversimplifying. "The right to bare [sic] arms" was established
>>> back around 1790 or so, in very different times. For roughly 200 years,
>>> case after case in the Supreme Court acknowledged that the preceding
>>> phrase regarding "A well-regulated militia" was important context
>>> informing that phrase; and that in any case, the amendment did NOT mean
>>> that any person could own any type of armament; that restrictions were
>>> necessary.
>>>
>>> Then the NRA became a heavily politicized tool of gun manufacturers and
>>> the extreme right wing. An organization that was once about
>>> marksmanship, with very rational positions (e.g. restrictions on
>>> concealed carry, restrictions on combat-optimized weapons) began
>>> opposing any and all restrictions on any and all kinds of guns. It
>>> helped fund political campaigns that resulted in a Supreme Court for
>>> which decades, perhaps centuries of precedents count less than the
>>> wishes of the far right.
>>>

Frank, you seem to have a very bigoted viewpoint. Would you care to
tell us, what major industry in the U.S. does not contribute to
political parties that will "take care" of them?
https://howmuch.net/articles/the-30-biggest-political-donors-on-the-fortune-500
In fact "buying" politicians seems to have been a part of the
democratic system since it's origin. Or, to be polite, "influencing".

I have no idea whether you make a donation to any political party but
if you do I doubt very strongly that it would be to a party that
opposes your wants/needs/hopes/ideas/whatever.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:37:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 2/15/2022 1:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/15/2022 2:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as scale and scope, the history of suffering
>>> subjugation and destruction of unarmed populations is well
>>> known. No thanks.
>>
>> Hmm. Are you worried the Canadians will invade and subjugate
>> us? Canadians seem to do fine - better than us - with much
>> more logical gun policies (and much less paranoia).
>>
>> Or did you seriously think Obama was going to take away all
>> your guns?
>>
>
>Canadian citizens have their own new and large problems.
>
>Mr Trudeau today invoked National Emergency powers rather
>than relent in his various population control orders:
>https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-cabinet-1.6350734
>
>That's the brief anodyne report. Here are the chilling details:
>https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-explainer-1.6351504
>
>A perusal of the writings, minutes and arguments of the
>Framers shows nothing about targets or hunting in relation
>to our beloved 2d. The keyword is 'tyranny'.

Well, a bit of history.
Initially the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation
(ratified in 1781) which gave most of the power in the united states
to the states. Subsequently, in an effort to strength the power of the
Central Government the Constitution was written... however a great
many of the citizens living in the U.S. viewed a strong central
government with considerable apprehension and it appeared that it
would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get the new
document accepted by the states.

As a means of appeasing the states the so called Bill of Rights was
written, thus protecting the citizens and the states from a tyrannical
central government.

Somewhere I read that "those that ignore history are doomed to repeat
it"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:20:02 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 10:19:37 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:46:03 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> > On 2/14/2022 11:20 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > > On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> > >> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> > >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > >>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>> > >>>>>
>> > >>>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>> > >>>> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>> > >>> Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>> > >>> This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>> > >> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>> > >> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>> > >> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>> > >> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>> > >> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>> > >>
>> > >> Prone with the M1
>> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>> > >> Standing with the M1
>> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>> > >> Girl shooting Trap
>> > >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>> > >> --
>> > >> Cheers,
>> > >>
>> > >> John B.
>> > >
>> > > Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
>> > >
>> > OK I clicked the last video link. She actualy is shooting
>> > trap. And she's good at it. What was your objection?
>> Russell and Flunky have the idea that a woman can do anything a man can. This was the same BS by which they were attempting to put women into combat. They do not have the physical strength and fortitude to protect themselves in such conditions and hence become a burden upon the men who of needs must then protect them.
>>
>> These guys have never fired a 12 gauge or high powered rifle and yet are pretending knowledge they don't have. I have never seen woman, even good trap shooters fire even a full box of 12 gauge and trap shot are light. I think that they more commonly were shooting 20 gauge. It fit their physique much better.
>
>Tommy, only you think a woman can do anything a man can. Everyone else on earth realizes there are physical differences between males and females. An obvious one is size and strength. Men are bigger and stronger. On average. The Olympics are on right now. If you look at the results for events where men and women to the same thing. Such as cross country skiing and skating, you will see the men are always faster than the women. And in things like weight lifting, the weights the men lift are much greater than the weights the women lift. I'm guessing there is women weight lifting now days. I know there is women boxing. But everyone but Tommy knows there are physical differences in women and men.
>
>Regarding combat. In some combat jobs, positions, physical strength and endurance is a necessity. Such as a foot soldier carrying a pack of ammo and equipment during a battle. Men have a decided advantage. But there are also many combat positions where physical strength is not a requirement. Tank crew for instance. The gun loader I believe hand loads the shells in the barrel. Physical strength needed. But the driver just drives the tank. How strong do you need to be to shift gears and push the gas/diesel/turbine pedal? Couldn't a woman do that just as well as a man? And the person who sights the gun and talks on the radio? Does that require physical strength? Another example. Mine sweeper. People who use those metal detectors to find land mines and clear a path so vehicles and men won't get blown up. How much physical strength is needed to hold a mine sweeper, metal detector? Or to dig up a land mine with a little shovel?

The best argument I've seen about women in combat was somewhere I
read, "just try to get up with a 70 lb pack on your back after you
squat down to pee". I suggest that there is some truth to that (:-)

But really, based on 20 years of experience I would say that mixing
women and men in the same environment ends up in problems.

In one case we had women radar technicians and it was discovered that
some of them were "turning tricks" in the airplanes at night so they
all got put on the day shift which caused considerable discontent
among the males that had to pull more night duty.

In another case at a supply office all the girls ran off and hid in
the Ladies toilet when it came tome to clean up at the end of the day.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:31:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/15/2022 8:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/15/2022 5:52 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:37:46 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/15/2022 1:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2022 2:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as scale and scope, the history of suffering
>>>>>> subjugation and destruction of unarmed populations is well
>>>>>> known. No thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm. Are you worried the Canadians will invade and subjugate
>>>>> us? Canadians seem to do fine - better than us - with much
>>>>> more logical gun policies (and much less paranoia).
>>>>>
>>>>> Or did you seriously think Obama was going to take away all
>>>>> your guns?
>>>>>
>>>> Canadian citizens have their own new and large problems.
>>>>
>>>> Mr Trudeau today invoked National Emergency powers rather
>>>> than relent in his various population control orders:
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-cabinet-1.6350734
>>>
>>> Quotes from the article:
>>> "This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs and
>>> restoring confidence in our institutions," he said."  Trudeau said this.
>>>
>>> "Interim Conservative Leader Candice Bergen accused Trudeau of
>>> dividing Canadians.
>>> "We've seen the prime minister wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians
>>> he doesn't agree with and by doing so he creates so many barriers in
>>> terms of trying to solve this problem," she said."
>>> Trump?????????????
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's the brief anodyne report. Here are the chilling details:
>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-explainer-1.6351504
>>>>
>>>> A perusal of the writings, minutes and arguments of the
>>>> Framers shows nothing about targets or hunting in relation
>>>> to our beloved 2d. The keyword is 'tyranny'.
>>
>>
>> Yes that Trudeau quotation is damning enough but he went on.
>>
>> Conrad Black had an excellent analysis in The Sun on Sunday, noting that
>> the prime takeaway was that this shows the utter failure of the Canadian
>> political system. The Administration doesn't have a clue and the
>> Opposition doesn't have a spine.
>
>"Utter failure of the Canadian political system"?
>
>That's more than a little harsh. To me, "utter failure of a political
>system" is something like Mogadishu, not Canada.
>
>I expect that the trucks will get towed or driven away, commerce and
>manufacturing will resume, most Canadians will continue to think the
>protesters are assholes, some people who let law and order slip will get
>pink slips, and Canada will be just fine.

We've, over the years had quite a number of demonstrations here. The
most recent has been a group of collage students that congregated on a
busy road and blocked traffic arguing that the P.M. should resign and
that certain laws that apply to the King and royal family should be
changed.

Interestingly this time the police didn't bother them at all. The
police did prevented any damage to property but just let them stand in
the road. Of course, blocking the road incensed anyone that drove to
work over that road, I asked one taxi driver about them and he used a
rather impolite term to describe them, but generally the students were
just left to stand there.

And they all went away in only a couple of days.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 7:30:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:35:01 -0800 (PST), Tim R
> <timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:21:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> But given the high level of crime in the U.S., will banning guns
> >> effect the homicide rate by a large percentage. Certainly the
> >> anti-gunners claim it will. Which may be an over simplistic notion.
> >>
> >
> >As a direct effect, no. And especially if the ban is directed at a particular type of weapon that seems scary but is rarely used in homicide. (I can't tell you how often I've heard this conversation: "We've got to do something!" "but, that won't actually have any effect because..." "I don't care, we've gotta do SOMETHING!")
> >
> >Indirectly, possibly. Here's why I think that. Culture always trumps regulation and enforcement. The US is a culture that solves problems with violence including guns. Legislation with little direct effect can sometimes be part of a culture shift. It's annoying but possible. An example is the European law against spanking.
> >
> >The first thing I'd do to reduce gun violence is get rid of the death penalty. Our legal and justice system has codified into our psyche that killing people is a good way to solve problems. That wouldn't have a large effect immediately, but it can be a part of an overall strategy to change some of our habits. Remember when they asked Ghandi what he thought about western civilization, he replied, "it would be a very good idea."
> >
> >Everyone wants an easy fix. Not all problems have easy fixes.
> Well... you have to admit that the death sentence serves to reduce
> prison over crowding (:-)
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

I think to kill someone legally in the USA is dam-ed expensive. First trial, then appeal after appeal. Then more appeals and such arguing against the death penalty. Takes many years. Decades. And then you have to have a special death row wing of the prison. And special methods to kill someone. I would not be surprised if it costs the same to kill one person as it costs to keep 10 in prison for life. I don't want to bear the burden of paying to kill people. I wonder which Republicans would choose? Raise taxes and use the extra money to kill people? Or cut taxes and don't kill people? Tough choice.

On Wed, 16 Feb 2022 00:07:27 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 7:30:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:35:01 -0800 (PST), Tim R
>> <timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:21:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> But given the high level of crime in the U.S., will banning guns
>> >> effect the homicide rate by a large percentage. Certainly the
>> >> anti-gunners claim it will. Which may be an over simplistic notion.
>> >>
>> >
>> >As a direct effect, no. And especially if the ban is directed at a particular type of weapon that seems scary but is rarely used in homicide. (I can't tell you how often I've heard this conversation: "We've got to do something!" "but, that won't actually have any effect because..." "I don't care, we've gotta do SOMETHING!")
>> >
>> >Indirectly, possibly. Here's why I think that. Culture always trumps regulation and enforcement. The US is a culture that solves problems with violence including guns. Legislation with little direct effect can sometimes be part of a culture shift. It's annoying but possible. An example is the European law against spanking.
>> >
>> >The first thing I'd do to reduce gun violence is get rid of the death penalty. Our legal and justice system has codified into our psyche that killing people is a good way to solve problems. That wouldn't have a large effect immediately, but it can be a part of an overall strategy to change some of our habits. Remember when they asked Ghandi what he thought about western civilization, he replied, "it would be a very good idea."
>> >
>> >Everyone wants an easy fix. Not all problems have easy fixes.
>> Well... you have to admit that the death sentence serves to reduce
>> prison over crowding (:-)
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I think to kill someone legally in the USA is dam-ed expensive. First trial, then appeal after appeal. Then more appeals and such arguing against the death penalty. Takes many years. Decades. And then you have to have a special death row wing of the prison. And special methods to kill someone. I would not be surprised if it costs the same to kill one person as it costs to keep 10 in prison for life. I don't want to bear the burden of paying to kill people. I wonder which Republicans would choose? Raise taxes and use the extra money to kill people? Or cut taxes and don't kill people? Tough choice.

Well, yes. I recently read about an execution just the other day. 15
years after the crime.

I rather like the way that Singapore does, or did, do things. If you
are convicted of a crime for which the penalty is execution then there
is an automatic appeal made to the President of the Republic.

The President then has something like 7 days to act and he can, pardon
the criminal, order a new trial, or simply ignore the appeal. In the
later case your execution is carried out immediately. Sometimes within
a week of the conviction.

Perhaps it is a matter of the make up of the population but I lived in
Singapore and/or visited it frequently for more then 20 years and I
never heard a "local" say a thing derogatory about the laws, and they
have some pretty rigorous ones. Possession of more then 2 grams of
Heroin makes you a dealer and the penalty is death, possession of less
is, usually, a 10 year prison sentence.. Driving an auto with a hand
phone in your hand is de facto proof that you are using a hand phone
while driving and the penalty is a $1,000 fine and/or 6 months in
prison., Spitting on the sidewalk gets you 1 $1,000 fine.

But drug use is something like 0.005%, nobody spits on the sidewalk
nor do they use a hand phone while driving. And, as I said, in the
more then 20 years that I worked/lived/visited the country I never
heard a citizen bitch about the laws.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 6:02:54 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 10:54:38 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > Russell and Flunky have the idea that a woman can do anything a man can.
> > > This was the same BS by which they were attempting to put women into combat.
> > > They do not have the physical strength and fortitude to protect themselves in such
> > > conditions and hence become a burden upon the men who of needs must then protect them.
> > Right, where would society be if women ever thought they could do anything more than birth babies? They shouldn't even be allowed to vote, lest their vapors take hold of them while in the polling booth! They need big strong men like tommy to protect them!
> > > These guys have never fired a 12 gauge or high powered rifle and yet are pretending knowledge they don't have.
> > I used to go hunting on occasion with my father and grandfather - duck hunting with a 12 gauge. Besides that, list one place in this forum where I ever spoke of any firearm expertise. I don't consider myself a firearms expert, and have never stated anything that would lead anyone to believe otherwise. This is another case of you imagining I've written something I didn't.
> > > I have never seen woman, even good trap shooters fire even a full box of 12 gauge and trap shot are light.
> > > I think that they more commonly were shooting 20 gauge. It fit their physique much better.
> > More fishing with dynamite - this search took me all of five minutes:
> > https://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-girl-10-rising-competitive-shooting-star-prove/story?id=27318927
> > "Ten-year-old Shyanne Roberts loves purple: Purple sneakers, purple bike -- even her semi-automatic shotgun is purple.“[It’s] a Beretta 1301, 12 gauge,” she said, holding up a firearm that is longer than she is tall."
> >
> > https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/31/with-gun-sponsorships-and-support-a-14-year-old-girls-rise-on-the-active-shooting-circuit/
> > “Despite her small size, she went right for the 12-gauge,” said Kate Arnzen, owner of Arnzen Arms, an Eden Prairie gun shop, one of Dakota’s first sponsors. “Some kids are more intimidated doing the rifle and shotgun. Not her.”
> >
> > https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/sports/the-skeet-shooter-kim-rhode-has-sights-trained-on-fifth-olympic-medal.html
> > "Kim Rhode slips two shells into her 12-gauge shotgun, yells “Pull!” and takes dead-aim on the first target, then a second one whizzing through the air. She hits both cleanly, leaving orange clouds of chalk hanging in the cool air."
> >
> > https://scliving.coop/sc-life/sc-life-features/young-guns/
> > "16-year-old Bonnie Wyatt steps easily into her shooting stance, leaning forward slightly with the stock of her 12-gauge Beretta shotgun pressed tightly into her right shoulder."
> >
> > https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sports/high-school/2020/06/18/emily-ferguson-one-eyed-trap-shooter-sports-awards-courage-award-winner/5318649002/
> > "Emily Ferguson assembles her Beretta 692 12-gauge shotgun at the Memphis Sports Shooting Association in Lakeland"
> >
> > Lessee....All USA generals went to west point, women can't handle a 12 gauge, the supreme court ruled large capacity magazine bans are unconstitutional....just another typical week of Tommy thinking he knows what he's talking about - and failing miserably.
> > "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich
>
> So now you're accepting the fact that women can outride you any day of the week. Interesting.

You're really as stupid as they come. Seriously. I've never run into someone with such an incredibly low intellect backed up by an inversely proportional arrogance. How you got ' women can outride you' from links showing women (and young small women at that) regularly shoot 12 gauge is something only a highly talented psychoanalyst could derive.
FWIW - I've ridden in plenty of races where women have finished in front of me. I'm no where near the level of a professional female cyclist and never have been, and yes, they are allowed to compete in USAC Pro/1/2/3 fields. I have the ultimate respect for them.
"Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich

I worked in corrections in the 70s. The total US prison population then was roughly 260,000. Today it is 1,873,000. It went from about a quarter million to almost 2 million in my lifetime. Of course I'm pretty old.
Death penalty as a deterrent is based on the economic crime ideas of Jeremy Bentham, dating back to the 1830s. Research shows those are wrong.

Recoil really does make a difference in accurate shooting, especially for the less experienced. Less than 5% of the population hunt, and probably not many of those fire many rounds per year. Now that military rifles have little recoil, I see soldiers holding them in ways that would be painful with a 12 gauge or .30 caliber, but that work very well with the 5.56 rounds.

On 2/15/2022 9:39 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 14:37:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2022 1:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2022 2:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as scale and scope, the history of suffering
>>>> subjugation and destruction of unarmed populations is well
>>>> known. No thanks.
>>>
>>> Hmm. Are you worried the Canadians will invade and subjugate
>>> us? Canadians seem to do fine - better than us - with much
>>> more logical gun policies (and much less paranoia).
>>>
>>> Or did you seriously think Obama was going to take away all
>>> your guns?
>>>
>>
>> Canadian citizens have their own new and large problems.
>>
>> Mr Trudeau today invoked National Emergency powers rather
>> than relent in his various population control orders:
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-cabinet-1.6350734
>>
>> That's the brief anodyne report. Here are the chilling details:
>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-explainer-1.6351504
>>
>> A perusal of the writings, minutes and arguments of the
>> Framers shows nothing about targets or hunting in relation
>> to our beloved 2d. The keyword is 'tyranny'.
>
> Well, a bit of history.
> Initially the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation
> (ratified in 1781) which gave most of the power in the united states
> to the states. Subsequently, in an effort to strength the power of the
> Central Government the Constitution was written... however a great
> many of the citizens living in the U.S. viewed a strong central
> government with considerable apprehension and it appeared that it
> would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get the new
> document accepted by the states.
>
> As a means of appeasing the states the so called Bill of Rights was
> written, thus protecting the citizens and the states from a tyrannical
> central government.
>
> Somewhere I read that "those that ignore history are doomed to repeat
> it"
>
>

Yes indeed, "the U.S. viewed a strong central government
with considerable apprehension" then and now. With good
reason, I might add.

There are numerous examples of unarmed populations
successfully raising an army to resist foreign invaders. The
risk to unarmed populations isn't from without but rather
from within.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/15/2022 11:38 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 15:20:02 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 10:19:37 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:46:03 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/14/2022 11:20 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 2:24:26 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Feb 2022 23:15:08 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 6:55:05 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:43:54 PM UTC-8, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 7:24:12 PM UTC-5, Tim R wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Some discussion earlier about the military mindset and tradition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read a fascinating book about the evolution of the military long arm over time, and there was violent disagreement from the earliest days over the choice of calibre which continues to this day. The title escapes me.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The original musket was in .69 caliber. By the Civil War this had shrunk to .58, over the bitter resistance of what they called gravel bellies. Soldiers could carry more ammo, so they British sshot more ammo, so somebody had to pay for, procure, and deliver more ammo.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .45 caliber owned the late 1800s, with the .30 appearing near the end. The Phillippine conflict still had mostly trapdoor springfields in .45 but I the .30 Krag was used. Every reduction was fought ferociously by the oldtimers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There were extensive tests of lethality (sheep I think), range, and accuracy at Aberdeen Proving ground, and out to about 1000 yards the .276 did as well as the larger calibers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In Vietnam we went to .223, which I think is the sweet spot - smaller loses range and penetration, larger loses ability to carry enough ammo and recoil hurts accuracy for most soldiers. (I recently rewatched Zulu. Those rifles were Martini-Henrys in .577/.450, meaning they were a .577 cartridge case necked down to fire a .450 caliber 480 grain bullet. Recoil had to be extreme with that loading, and the average soldier probably weighed about 140.)
>>>>>>>> Recoil isn't very important. Women skeet shooter use 12 gauge full loads without having any problems shooting entire matches with guns that recoil a great deal more than the M1A. I couldn't even feel the recoil of the M1 carbine which shoots a 30 caliber round.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErN5UNx5XqM
>>>>>>> Above is a video of a girl shooting an M1 Garand. Video is only 58 seconds in length. She is sitting at a table and the rifle is on a rest. For some reason her chair has wheels. But everytime she fires a 30-06 shell, her shoulder flies backwards 6 inches and her head snaps back off of the buttstock. A 30-06 rifle cartridge is not a light recoil weapon.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Kig2kaHZEg
>>>>>>> This video is of a man firing the M1 Garand in 30-06. He handles the recoil better. He is standing. But it still kicks and recoils. It is not a light recoil weapon. Video is 2:14 in length and the M1 starts at about 25 second mark.
>>>>>> Well, I've shot the M1 in a number of rifle matches you (or I) are
>>>>>> concentrating on the sights and the target and it is more a matter of
>>>>>> getting back on target. The same in 12 gauge trap shooting. The bird
>>>>>> flies and you are concentrating on swinging the gun and leading and
>>>>>> honestly you hardly notice the recoil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prone with the M1
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc6pKWqJ1QE
>>>>>> Standing with the M1
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xg1n3G43Q0
>>>>>> Girl shooting Trap
>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2mW6wE_R78
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>> Girl? John, you need to get out there in the world a little bit more and look around some. Your perception might be getting a little too close to Tommy boy's.
>>>>>
>>>> OK I clicked the last video link. She actualy is shooting
>>>> trap. And she's good at it. What was your objection?
>>> Russell and Flunky have the idea that a woman can do anything a man can. This was the same BS by which they were attempting to put women into combat. They do not have the physical strength and fortitude to protect themselves in such conditions and hence become a burden upon the men who of needs must then protect them.
>>>
>>> These guys have never fired a 12 gauge or high powered rifle and yet are pretending knowledge they don't have. I have never seen woman, even good trap shooters fire even a full box of 12 gauge and trap shot are light. I think that they more commonly were shooting 20 gauge. It fit their physique much better.
>>
>> Tommy, only you think a woman can do anything a man can. Everyone else on earth realizes there are physical differences between males and females. An obvious one is size and strength. Men are bigger and stronger. On average. The Olympics are on right now. If you look at the results for events where men and women to the same thing. Such as cross country skiing and skating, you will see the men are always faster than the women. And in things like weight lifting, the weights the men lift are much greater than the weights the women lift. I'm guessing there is women weight lifting now days. I know there is women boxing. But everyone but Tommy knows there are physical differences in women and men.
>>
>> Regarding combat. In some combat jobs, positions, physical strength and endurance is a necessity. Such as a foot soldier carrying a pack of ammo and equipment during a battle. Men have a decided advantage. But there are also many combat positions where physical strength is not a requirement. Tank crew for instance. The gun loader I believe hand loads the shells in the barrel. Physical strength needed. But the driver just drives the tank. How strong do you need to be to shift gears and push the gas/diesel/turbine pedal? Couldn't a woman do that just as well as a man? And the person who sights the gun and talks on the radio? Does that require physical strength? Another example. Mine sweeper. People who use those metal detectors to find land mines and clear a path so vehicles and men won't get blown up. How much physical strength is needed to hold a mine sweeper, metal detector? Or to dig up a land mine with a little shovel?
>
> The best argument I've seen about women in combat was somewhere I
> read, "just try to get up with a 70 lb pack on your back after you
> squat down to pee". I suggest that there is some truth to that (:-)
>
> But really, based on 20 years of experience I would say that mixing
> women and men in the same environment ends up in problems.
>
> In one case we had women radar technicians and it was discovered that
> some of them were "turning tricks" in the airplanes at night so they
> all got put on the day shift which caused considerable discontent
> among the males that had to pull more night duty.
>
> In another case at a supply office all the girls ran off and hid in
> the Ladies toilet when it came tome to clean up at the end of the day.
>

Humans are more diverse than one might at first recognize.
On one hand:

https://www.stripes.com/branches/navy-seeks-to-combat-high-rate-of-unplanned-pregnancies-1.203122

Then again on the other:

https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/15/politics/woman-navy-special-warfare/index.html

BTW I would bet real money than not one person here on RBT
could qualify NSW.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/16/2022 12:01 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 21:31:56 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/15/2022 8:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/15/2022 5:52 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 2:37:46 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 2/15/2022 1:23 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/15/2022 2:04 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As far as scale and scope, the history of suffering
>>>>>>> subjugation and destruction of unarmed populations is well
>>>>>>> known. No thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm. Are you worried the Canadians will invade and subjugate
>>>>>> us? Canadians seem to do fine - better than us - with much
>>>>>> more logical gun policies (and much less paranoia).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or did you seriously think Obama was going to take away all
>>>>>> your guns?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Canadian citizens have their own new and large problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mr Trudeau today invoked National Emergency powers rather
>>>>> than relent in his various population control orders:
>>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-premiers-cabinet-1.6350734
>>>>
>>>> Quotes from the article:
>>>> "This is about keeping Canadians safe, protecting people's jobs and
>>>> restoring confidence in our institutions," he said." Trudeau said this.
>>>>
>>>> "Interim Conservative Leader Candice Bergen accused Trudeau of
>>>> dividing Canadians.
>>>> "We've seen the prime minister wedge, divide and stigmatize Canadians
>>>> he doesn't agree with and by doing so he creates so many barriers in
>>>> terms of trying to solve this problem," she said."
>>>> Trump?????????????
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's the brief anodyne report. Here are the chilling details:
>>>>> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/emergencies-act-explainer-1.6351504
>>>>>
>>>>> A perusal of the writings, minutes and arguments of the
>>>>> Framers shows nothing about targets or hunting in relation
>>>>> to our beloved 2d. The keyword is 'tyranny'.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes that Trudeau quotation is damning enough but he went on.
>>>
>>> Conrad Black had an excellent analysis in The Sun on Sunday, noting that
>>> the prime takeaway was that this shows the utter failure of the Canadian
>>> political system. The Administration doesn't have a clue and the
>>> Opposition doesn't have a spine.
>>
>> "Utter failure of the Canadian political system"?
>>
>> That's more than a little harsh. To me, "utter failure of a political
>> system" is something like Mogadishu, not Canada.
>>
>> I expect that the trucks will get towed or driven away, commerce and
>> manufacturing will resume, most Canadians will continue to think the
>> protesters are assholes, some people who let law and order slip will get
>> pink slips, and Canada will be just fine.
>
> We've, over the years had quite a number of demonstrations here. The
> most recent has been a group of collage students that congregated on a
> busy road and blocked traffic arguing that the P.M. should resign and
> that certain laws that apply to the King and royal family should be
> changed.
>
> Interestingly this time the police didn't bother them at all. The
> police did prevented any damage to property but just let them stand in
> the road. Of course, blocking the road incensed anyone that drove to
> work over that road, I asked one taxi driver about them and he used a
> rather impolite term to describe them, but generally the students were
> just left to stand there.
>
> And they all went away in only a couple of days.
>

Canada does not have a 1st Amendment with right to assemble,
petition.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 2/16/2022 2:07 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 7:30:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 05:35:01 -0800 (PST), Tim R
>> <timoth...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, February 14, 2022 at 11:21:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> But given the high level of crime in the U.S., will banning guns
>>>> effect the homicide rate by a large percentage. Certainly the
>>>> anti-gunners claim it will. Which may be an over simplistic notion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As a direct effect, no. And especially if the ban is directed at a particular type of weapon that seems scary but is rarely used in homicide. (I can't tell you how often I've heard this conversation: "We've got to do something!" "but, that won't actually have any effect because..." "I don't care, we've gotta do SOMETHING!")
>>>
>>> Indirectly, possibly. Here's why I think that. Culture always trumps regulation and enforcement. The US is a culture that solves problems with violence including guns. Legislation with little direct effect can sometimes be part of a culture shift. It's annoying but possible. An example is the European law against spanking.
>>>
>>> The first thing I'd do to reduce gun violence is get rid of the death penalty. Our legal and justice system has codified into our psyche that killing people is a good way to solve problems. That wouldn't have a large effect immediately, but it can be a part of an overall strategy to change some of our habits. Remember when they asked Ghandi what he thought about western civilization, he replied, "it would be a very good idea."
>>>
>>> Everyone wants an easy fix. Not all problems have easy fixes.
>> Well... you have to admit that the death sentence serves to reduce
>> prison over crowding (:-)
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
> I think to kill someone legally in the USA is dam-ed expensive. First trial, then appeal after appeal. Then more appeals and such arguing against the death penalty. Takes many years. Decades. And then you have to have a special death row wing of the prison. And special methods to kill someone. I would not be surprised if it costs the same to kill one person as it costs to keep 10 in prison for life. I don't want to bear the burden of paying to kill people. I wonder which Republicans would choose? Raise taxes and use the extra money to kill people? Or cut taxes and don't kill people? Tough choice.
>

I can't disagree with any of that. Sort of a variation on
Cloward-Piven but equally disruptive.

It's possible in that some states allow firing squad of
volunteers and there are plenty of volunteers.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-execution-of-gary-gilmore

Also, every state spends a non-trivial amount burning
contraband Heroin, Fentanyl etc. And yet states with death
by injection suffer chronic supply problems, frequently
botched dosages etc regularly. I see a simple solution here.

But those are mechanistic analyses. To the more important
larger question, if governments were either competent or
honest I would back death penalty. However, in the real
world, innocent men are periodically acquitted years after
conviction. Not in large numbers but still not zero either.
And details of those travesties do not reflect well on the
judiciary or on enforcement agencies.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Am 16.02.2022 um 14:45 schrieb AMuzi:
>
> BTW I would bet real money than not one person here on RBT could qualify
> NSW.

Certainly not at our age. It might have been different at age 20.

On 2/16/2022 8:45 AM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 16.02.2022 um 14:45 schrieb AMuzi:
>>
>> BTW I would bet real money than not one person here on RBT
>> could qualify NSW.
>
> Certainly not at our age. It might have been different at
> age 20.

+1

RBT is a bit short on 20-year-olds at the moment.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 4:12:21 PM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 5:02:54 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 10:54:38 AM UTC-8, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 11:19:37 AM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Russell and Flunky have the idea that a woman can do anything a man can.
> > > > This was the same BS by which they were attempting to put women into combat.
> > > > They do not have the physical strength and fortitude to protect themselves in such
> > > > conditions and hence become a burden upon the men who of needs must then protect them.
> > > Right, where would society be if women ever thought they could do anything more than birth babies? They shouldn't even be allowed to vote, lest their vapors take hold of them while in the polling booth! They need big strong men like tommy to protect them!
> > > > These guys have never fired a 12 gauge or high powered rifle and yet are pretending knowledge they don't have.
> > > I used to go hunting on occasion with my father and grandfather - duck hunting with a 12 gauge. Besides that, list one place in this forum where I ever spoke of any firearm expertise. I don't consider myself a firearms expert, and have never stated anything that would lead anyone to believe otherwise. This is another case of you imagining I've written something I didn't.
> > > > I have never seen woman, even good trap shooters fire even a full box of 12 gauge and trap shot are light.
> > > > I think that they more commonly were shooting 20 gauge. It fit their physique much better.
> > > More fishing with dynamite - this search took me all of five minutes:
> > > https://abcnews.go.com/US/jersey-girl-10-rising-competitive-shooting-star-prove/story?id=27318927
> > > "Ten-year-old Shyanne Roberts loves purple: Purple sneakers, purple bike -- even her semi-automatic shotgun is purple.“[It’s] a Beretta 1301, 12 gauge,” she said, holding up a firearm that is longer than she is tall."
> > >
> > > https://www.twincities.com/2018/03/31/with-gun-sponsorships-and-support-a-14-year-old-girls-rise-on-the-active-shooting-circuit/
> > > “Despite her small size, she went right for the 12-gauge,” said Kate Arnzen, owner of Arnzen Arms, an Eden Prairie gun shop, one of Dakota’s first sponsors. “Some kids are more intimidated doing the rifle and shotgun. Not her.”
> > >
> > > https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/sports/the-skeet-shooter-kim-rhode-has-sights-trained-on-fifth-olympic-medal.html
> > > "Kim Rhode slips two shells into her 12-gauge shotgun, yells “Pull!” and takes dead-aim on the first target, then a second one whizzing through the air. She hits both cleanly, leaving orange clouds of chalk hanging in the cool air."
> > >
> > > https://scliving.coop/sc-life/sc-life-features/young-guns/
> > > "16-year-old Bonnie Wyatt steps easily into her shooting stance, leaning forward slightly with the stock of her 12-gauge Beretta shotgun pressed tightly into her right shoulder."
> > >
> > > https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/sports/high-school/2020/06/18/emily-ferguson-one-eyed-trap-shooter-sports-awards-courage-award-winner/5318649002/
> > > "Emily Ferguson assembles her Beretta 692 12-gauge shotgun at the Memphis Sports Shooting Association in Lakeland"
> > >
> > > Lessee....All USA generals went to west point, women can't handle a 12 gauge, the supreme court ruled large capacity magazine bans are unconstitutional....just another typical week of Tommy thinking he knows what he's talking about - and failing miserably.
> > > "Magazines available up to 30 rounds for visiting gay bath houses" - Tom Kunich
> > So now you're accepting the fact that women can outride you any day of the week. Interesting.
> Tommy boy, you need to expand your circle of acquaintances. I have ridden with women who cold out ride me. Speed, distance. They were stronger bicyclists than me. On the bike anyway. In a physical fist fight I might have taken them. Maybe.
>
> Back in 2007 I rode Paris Brest Paris. 750 mile brevet from a Paris suburb to Brest on the ocean and back. Time limit of 90 hours. I rode it a bit faster. I placed #678. Yeah!!!!!!!! There were 3607 finishers out of a total starters of 5159. 12 women were faster than me. Yes a whole dozen women rode faster on PBP 2007 than me. One was from the USA. Other 11 were foreigners. Although for a French ride with a world wide participation, I am not sure how the word "foreigners" really applies. It doesn't bother me too much that 12 women rode faster than me.
Explain why the women's Tour de France has no comparison with the men's? A woman can outride YOU? What is that supposed to mean?