On 3/1/2022 7:58 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 6:45 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 7:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Granted it is hearsay but an Australian friend assures me
>>> that when
>>> the gun buy back program in Australia was in full swing
>>> that the
>>> larger diameter plastic piping was in short supply as all
>>> over
>>> Australia people were buying it to entomb their guns for
>>> burial.
>>> (buried to keep them of the hands of the gun grabbers)
>>
>> Actually, I don't have a problem with that. That way, if
>> Australia were invaded by, say, New Guinea, the Ozzies could
>> dig up their guns and ammo and save their continent. But in
>> the meantime, there would be far fewer gun deaths - and
>> indeed, that's what did happen.
>>
>> https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/australia-marks-25-years-since-worst-mass-shooting-2021-04-28/
>>
>>
>>
>
> As your second grade teacher did. One jerk acted up and so the rest get
> collective punishment. Great.

It's a "punishment" only for a gun fetishist. For the great bulk of
people it's more like "Oh well, why would I need one anyway?"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that have far
>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought up the
>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their hallways
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of saying
>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>> population.
>>>>>
>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>>> policies?
>>>>
>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid fire
>>>> handgun?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>>>
>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
>>> home self-defense.
>>
>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>> pretending to be in combat.
>>
>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>> relative or yourself?
>>>
>>> A)  This common crime?
>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> B) or more like this?
>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>>
>>
>>
>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>
>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
>> least to me and mine.
>>
>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>>
>>
>>> {1} in the real world.
>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
>>> sound effects.
>>
>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>
>
> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned downwind and from
> occlusion, and take great pains to accurately sight in a lethal shot at
> the right moment[1].
>
> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in the morning
> needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly different situation.

That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.

"Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS). Among the findings of the most recent edition of the study are
the following:

In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298 justifiable homicides
involving a private citizen using a firearm. That same year, there were
10,380 criminal gun homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides
for every justifiable homicide.
Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in self-protective
behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1 percent of attempted and
completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.
Intended victims of property crimes engaged in self-protective
behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3 percent of attempted and
completed incidents between 2014 and 2016.

When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is most striking
is that in a nation of more than 300 million guns, how rarely firearms
are used in self-defense."

> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm not a hunter
> myself but you sure reference that a lot.

Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms, one I
heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many hunters and would
have been one if my life were just a tiny bit different - that is, if
I'd had the time to accept some invitations.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2022 7:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 7:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes
>>>>>>>>>>>> says I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the
>>>>>>>>>>> topic of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.”
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to
>>>>>>> accept. If you can't
>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the
>>>>>> U.S. is worse than
>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>
>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law
>>>>> abiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>
>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>> overcome the
>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>> makes no
>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>> turn and post
>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>
>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>> inherently?
>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>> have a point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>> French, Swedes
>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>> look up their
>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>
>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going
>>>> to assume that
>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>> their national
>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>> difference in how
>>>> people behave.
>>>>
>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>> don't change the
>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>
>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>> we will
>>> continue.
>>>
>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make
>>> a big
>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>
>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>
>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>> imagination? Or that
>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>> inhabitants of
>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>> why they act
>>> as they do?
>>>
>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>> of a vivid
>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>
>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>> rates the
>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>
>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>> facts.
>>>
>>
>> Well, I wonder if we have a natural experiment to use in
>> comparison? Oh, maybe we do. The national 55mph speed
>> limit was imposed on the States. Even States unwilling
>> were coerced/bribed with the Highway Trust Fund into
>> compliance, more or less[1].
>>
>> So, how's speed limit compliance going?
>>
>> https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/s88fcy/flow_of_traffic_on_the_beltline/
>>
>>
>> That conversation is ubiquitous- any expressway, any
>> Interstate. So would you maintain that a change of law
>> effected a change in countenance?
>
> Speed limits absolutely make a difference. No, they are not
> perfect - and Andrew, you really need to drop the idea that
> imperfect results are the same as zero results.
>
> Some cases in point: According to Wikipedia, the German
> Autobahn has reported average speeds of 88 mph in its
> unrestricted zones. It has 72 mph in its 75 mph (120 kph)
> zones.
>
> In the U.S., Wyoming is noted for zero, or very lax speed
> enforcement plus high speed limits (up to 80 mph). South
> Dakota also allows speeds up to 80, and New Mexico allows up
> to 75mph. Which states have the fastest drivers? "#1
> Wyoming: 21.09% of drivers exceed 70 mph. #2 South Dakota:
> 17.07% #3 New Mexico: 16.50% ."
>
> And in my own nearby city: For a couple years, the twisty
> inner city freeway long had a bad reputation for both
> speeding and serious crashes. Then came enforcement - sort
> of. The city began using speed cameras, and I say "sort of"
> because no ticket could be issued until the limit was
> exceeded by 10 mph. The result? Speeding became a far
> smaller problem, and serious crashes dropped even more.
>
> Then some legislators from the "Law and Order" party stepped
> in and wrote laws to discourage the use of speed cameras.
> Because The Constitution has a clause stating that anyone
> can drive any speed they want to, I guess.
>
> The major point? There will always be speeders and other
> assholes. But even though they are not perfect, laws DO
> affect people's behaviors, especially when properly enforced.
>
> (BTW, Germany does use speed cameras.)
>

On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>>>>>>>> are ...
>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>>>>>>>> have far
>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>>>>>>>> hallways
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>>> population.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>>>> policies?
>>>>>
>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>>>>> fire
>>>>> handgun?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
>>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>>>>
>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
>>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
>>>> home self-defense.
>>>
>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
>>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
>>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>>> pretending to be in combat.
>>>
>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>>> relative or yourself?
>>>>
>>>> A) This common crime?
>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> B) or more like this?
>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>>
>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
>>> least to me and mine.
>>>
>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
>>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>>>
>>>
>>>> {1} in the real world.
>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
>>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
>>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
>>>> sound effects.
>>>
>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>>
>>
>> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
>> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
>> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
>>
>> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
>> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
>> different situation.
>
> That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
>
>
> "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
> Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
> recent edition of the study are the following:
>
> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
> justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
> firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
> homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
> justifiable homicide.
> Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
> self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
> percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> and 2016.
> Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
> self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
> percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> and 2016.
>
> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
> most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
> guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
>
>
>> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
>> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>
> Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
> one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
> hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
> bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
> invitations.
>
>
>

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:40:29 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that have far
>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought up the
>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going to
>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their hallways and
>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans are
>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of saying
>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are afraid
>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>> population.
>>>>
>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>
>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>> policies?
>>>
>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid fire
>>> handgun?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense pistols are
>> revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40). Those all fire at the
>> same speed[1].
>>
>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in the past year
>> in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for home self-defense.
>
>I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at two rounds
>per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters don't do that. Target
>shooters do that only if they're pretending to be in combat.
>
>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your relative or
>> yourself?
>>
>> A)  This common crime?
>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>
>>
>> B) or more like this?
>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>
>"Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>
>Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at least to me
>and mine.
>
>But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household to be armed
>for protection? Why is it not necessary in Canada, Britain, Norway,
>Portugal...
>
>
>> {1} in the real world.
>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices which always
>> hit the intended target such as the bad guy's wrist when wielded by good
>> guy. Bad guy firearms also spray huge quantities just over good guy's
>> head with magic sound effects.
>
>I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.

Well, I read that from 1949 to 2021 there were some 512 homicides in
mass shootings and from 1949 until 2018 there were 51,403 killed on
bicycles.

I'm well aware of that silly glorification of bicycle culture.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:53:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes says I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the topic of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less violent crime then
>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the topic of rape at the
>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in some manner
>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your ego requires
>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to accept. If you can't
>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own dementia. After all
>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your arguments.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the U.S. is worse than
>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've never posited a
>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that Americans are
>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why would that be?
>>>>
>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>
>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law abiding then the
>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far fewer gun crimes
>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law abiding.
>>>>
>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic to argue "why
>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>
>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited Canada as evidence
>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will reduce gun
>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the Canadians are
>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip sliding away and
>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more law abiding.
>>>>
>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap yourself on the
>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again, overcome the
>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It makes no
>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and turn and post
>>>> suppositions.
>>>
>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ... inherently?
>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll have a point.
>>>
>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish, French, Swedes
>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun deaths than the U.S.
>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to look up their
>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>
>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going to assume that
>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with their national
>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>
>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big difference in how
>>> people behave.
>>>
>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>
>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And don't change the
>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>
>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject, we will
>> continue.
>>
>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>> difference in how people behave."
>>
>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>
>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid imagination? Or that
>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of inhabitants of
>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree why they act
>> as they do?
>>
>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples of a vivid
>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>
>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime rates the
>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>
>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just facts.
>
>OK, John, let's return to some "facts" you've repeatedly reported.
>
>On many occasions, you've discussed with apparent approval the extremely
>strict laws of Singapore, everything from spitting on sidewalks to
>dealing drugs. Each time you've done that, you ended with statements
>like "And in Singapore, people don't do those things."
>
>Your implication was NOT that Singaporeans are genetically prone to be
>well behaved people. Your implication was that properly enforced laws DO
>cause people to change their behavior.
>
>But you work just as hard to imply that the differences between American
>crime data and that of Canada, Britain, Ireland etc. are _not_ the legal
>policies and other government and social policies. And when I ask for
>details, YOU change the subject.
>
>Care to tell me why what works for Singapore, Canada, France, Germany
>and more would not work in the U.S.? Is it American genetics? Really?

Nice try. I state that Canadians are much more law abiding and you
travel all over the world to prove your point.

But to answer your question, yes, Singapore has extremely strict laws,
but what is more to the point is that they enforce these laws.

If you, for example, are caught with 30 grams of morphine, or more,
the penalty is death. And you can make an appeal to the President of
the country and he can pardon you but the numbers pardoned since
Singapore became a nation probably can be counted on one hand.

For holding a hand phone in your hand for driving it is a $1000 fine
and/or 6 months in jail. for a second offense it is $2,000 and/or 12
months in jail.

And no jury trials in Singapore, no lawyer jabbering away trying to
influence a jury. You go before the Judge, the police present their
evidence, you present your's if any, and the Judge rules.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:05:26 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 6:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes says
>>>>>>>>>>>> I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the topic
>>>>>>>>>>> of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.â€?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to accept.
>>>>>>> If you can't
>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the U.S.
>>>>>> is worse than
>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>
>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law abiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>
>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>
>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>> overcome the
>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>> makes no
>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>> turn and post
>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>
>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>> inherently?
>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>> have a point.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>> French, Swedes
>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>> look up their
>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>
>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going to
>>>> assume that
>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>> their national
>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>
>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>> difference in how
>>>> people behave.
>>>>
>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>
>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>> don't change the
>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>
>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>> we will
>>> continue.
>>>
>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make a
>>> big
>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>
>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>
>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>> imagination? Or that
>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>> inhabitants of
>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>> why they act
>>> as they do?
>>>
>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>> of a vivid
>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>
>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>> rates the
>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>
>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>> facts.
>>
>> OK, John, let's return to some "facts" you've repeatedly
>> reported.
>>
>> On many occasions, you've discussed with apparent approval
>> the extremely strict laws of Singapore, everything from
>> spitting on sidewalks to dealing drugs. Each time you've
>> done that, you ended with statements like "And in Singapore,
>> people don't do those things."
>>
>> Your implication was NOT that Singaporeans are genetically
>> prone to be well behaved people. Your implication was that
>> properly enforced laws DO cause people to change their
>> behavior.
>>
>> But you work just as hard to imply that the differences
>> between American crime data and that of Canada, Britain,
>> Ireland etc. are _not_ the legal policies and other
>> government and social policies. And when I ask for details,
>> YOU change the subject.
>>
>> Care to tell me why what works for Singapore, Canada,
>> France, Germany and more would not work in the U.S.? Is it
>> American genetics? Really?
>>
>
>No, not genetics; USA culture. We are the most genetically
>diverse nation in all of history. Period. Heck, I'm part
>Neandertal and also part Denisovan!
>
>We cannot adopt Singapore laws and policies. Here, the dope
>dealers have rights, unlike taxpayers, and the outcry
>against a sentence of hanging would bring blood in the
>streets. Even the rare death sentence here usually takes
>longer than natural life to process. Ain't gonna happen.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 7:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 7:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes
>>>>>>>>>>>>> says I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the
>>>>>>>>>>>> topic of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.â€?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to
>>>>>>>> accept. If you can't
>>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the
>>>>>>> U.S. is worse than
>>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law
>>>>>> abiding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>>> overcome the
>>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>>> makes no
>>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>>> turn and post
>>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>> inherently?
>>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>>> have a point.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>> French, Swedes
>>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>>> look up their
>>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going
>>>>> to assume that
>>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>>> their national
>>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>> difference in how
>>>>> people behave.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>> don't change the
>>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>>
>>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>>> we will
>>>> continue.
>>>>
>>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make
>>>> a big
>>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>>
>>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>>
>>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>>> imagination? Or that
>>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>>> inhabitants of
>>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>>> why they act
>>>> as they do?
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>>> of a vivid
>>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>>> rates the
>>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>>> facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I wonder if we have a natural experiment to use in
>>> comparison? Oh, maybe we do. The national 55mph speed
>>> limit was imposed on the States. Even States unwilling
>>> were coerced/bribed with the Highway Trust Fund into
>>> compliance, more or less[1].
>>>
>>> So, how's speed limit compliance going?
>>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/s88fcy/flow_of_traffic_on_the_beltline/
>>>
>>>
>>> That conversation is ubiquitous- any expressway, any
>>> Interstate. So would you maintain that a change of law
>>> effected a change in countenance?
>>
>> Speed limits absolutely make a difference. No, they are not
>> perfect - and Andrew, you really need to drop the idea that
>> imperfect results are the same as zero results.
>>
>> Some cases in point: According to Wikipedia, the German
>> Autobahn has reported average speeds of 88 mph in its
>> unrestricted zones. It has 72 mph in its 75 mph (120 kph)
>> zones.
>>
>> In the U.S., Wyoming is noted for zero, or very lax speed
>> enforcement plus high speed limits (up to 80 mph). South
>> Dakota also allows speeds up to 80, and New Mexico allows up
>> to 75mph. Which states have the fastest drivers? "#1
>> Wyoming: 21.09% of drivers exceed 70 mph. #2 South Dakota:
>> 17.07% #3 New Mexico: 16.50% ."
>>
>> And in my own nearby city: For a couple years, the twisty
>> inner city freeway long had a bad reputation for both
>> speeding and serious crashes. Then came enforcement - sort
>> of. The city began using speed cameras, and I say "sort of"
>> because no ticket could be issued until the limit was
>> exceeded by 10 mph. The result? Speeding became a far
>> smaller problem, and serious crashes dropped even more.
>>
>> Then some legislators from the "Law and Order" party stepped
>> in and wrote laws to discourage the use of speed cameras.
>> Because The Constitution has a clause stating that anyone
>> can drive any speed they want to, I guess.
>>
>> The major point? There will always be speeders and other
>> assholes. But even though they are not perfect, laws DO
>> affect people's behaviors, especially when properly enforced.
>>
>> (BTW, Germany does use speed cameras.)
>>
>
>Well, here we are, just as you wish.
>
>'Shall not be infringed' has come to mean only calibers
>smaller than .50, no full auto, permanent record of purchase
>at the Federally licensed dealer, a Federal excise tax on
>firearms and ammunition. The various States add their own
>taxes, licensing[1] and restrictions including severe
>restrictions on carry[2]. Municipalities add even more
>infringements.
>
>I will assume your use of the word 'asshole' in place of
>'driver' has some meaning in this conversation as well.
>
>[1] I can't take my ex to a pistol range near her home in IL
>without an Illinois FOID card. She doesn't own a firearm,
>but can't go into a range without the State card.
>
>[2] This is currently in litigation:
>https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/supreme-court-arguments-new-york-gun-case-signal-uphill-battle-defend-overly

On 3/1/2022 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/2022 7:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 7:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.�
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to
>>>>>>>>> accept. If you can't
>>>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the
>>>>>>>> U.S. is worse than
>>>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law
>>>>>>> abiding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>>>> overcome the
>>>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>>>> makes no
>>>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>>>> turn and post
>>>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>>> inherently?
>>>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>>>> have a point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>>> French, Swedes
>>>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>>>> look up their
>>>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going
>>>>>> to assume that
>>>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>>>> their national
>>>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>> difference in how
>>>>>> people behave.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>> don't change the
>>>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>>>
>>>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>>>> we will
>>>>> continue.
>>>>>
>>>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make
>>>>> a big
>>>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>>>
>>>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>>>> imagination? Or that
>>>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>>>> inhabitants of
>>>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>>>> why they act
>>>>> as they do?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>>>> of a vivid
>>>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>>>> rates the
>>>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>>>> facts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, I wonder if we have a natural experiment to use in
>>>> comparison? Oh, maybe we do. The national 55mph speed
>>>> limit was imposed on the States. Even States unwilling
>>>> were coerced/bribed with the Highway Trust Fund into
>>>> compliance, more or less[1].
>>>>
>>>> So, how's speed limit compliance going?
>>>>
>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/s88fcy/flow_of_traffic_on_the_beltline/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That conversation is ubiquitous- any expressway, any
>>>> Interstate. So would you maintain that a change of law
>>>> effected a change in countenance?
>>>
>>> Speed limits absolutely make a difference. No, they are not
>>> perfect - and Andrew, you really need to drop the idea that
>>> imperfect results are the same as zero results.
>>>
>>> Some cases in point: According to Wikipedia, the German
>>> Autobahn has reported average speeds of 88 mph in its
>>> unrestricted zones. It has 72 mph in its 75 mph (120 kph)
>>> zones.
>>>
>>> In the U.S., Wyoming is noted for zero, or very lax speed
>>> enforcement plus high speed limits (up to 80 mph). South
>>> Dakota also allows speeds up to 80, and New Mexico allows up
>>> to 75mph. Which states have the fastest drivers? "#1
>>> Wyoming: 21.09% of drivers exceed 70 mph. #2 South Dakota:
>>> 17.07% #3 New Mexico: 16.50% ."
>>>
>>> And in my own nearby city: For a couple years, the twisty
>>> inner city freeway long had a bad reputation for both
>>> speeding and serious crashes. Then came enforcement - sort
>>> of. The city began using speed cameras, and I say "sort of"
>>> because no ticket could be issued until the limit was
>>> exceeded by 10 mph. The result? Speeding became a far
>>> smaller problem, and serious crashes dropped even more.
>>>
>>> Then some legislators from the "Law and Order" party stepped
>>> in and wrote laws to discourage the use of speed cameras.
>>> Because The Constitution has a clause stating that anyone
>>> can drive any speed they want to, I guess.
>>>
>>> The major point? There will always be speeders and other
>>> assholes. But even though they are not perfect, laws DO
>>> affect people's behaviors, especially when properly enforced.
>>>
>>> (BTW, Germany does use speed cameras.)
>>>
>>
>> Well, here we are, just as you wish.
>>
>> 'Shall not be infringed' has come to mean only calibers
>> smaller than .50, no full auto, permanent record of purchase
>> at the Federally licensed dealer, a Federal excise tax on
>> firearms and ammunition. The various States add their own
>> taxes, licensing[1] and restrictions including severe
>> restrictions on carry[2]. Municipalities add even more
>> infringements.
>>
>> I will assume your use of the word 'asshole' in place of
>> 'driver' has some meaning in this conversation as well.
>>
>> [1] I can't take my ex to a pistol range near her home in IL
>> without an Illinois FOID card. She doesn't own a firearm,
>> but can't go into a range without the State card.
>>
>> [2] This is currently in litigation:
>> https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/supreme-court-arguments-new-york-gun-case-signal-uphill-battle-defend-overly
>
>
> I think that the best argument to Frank's assertions is that: "the
> right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> is part of the fundamental law of the U.S.
> But... it can be changed or deleted and I believe that the basic
> Constitution has been amended some 27 times.
>
> So, logically, if possession/ownership of firearms is really such a
> valid point of argument why hasn't the constitution been amended to
> prohibit it?
>
> And before Frank starts waving his arms in the air and shouting, "It
> should Be! It Should Be!" one might stop and give some consideration
> to the fact that the U.S. is a democracy and the fundamental
> philosophy behind a democracy is that the individual doesn't count.
> The majority rules.
>

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
> >>>>>>>>> are ...
> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
> >>>>>>>>> Irish,
> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
> >>>>>>>>> have far
> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
> >>>>>>>>> up the
> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >>>>>>>>> rape and
> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >>>>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >>>>>>>>> laws,
> >>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
> >>>>>>>> hallways
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
> >>>>>>> saying
> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
> >>>>>>> afraid
> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>>>>> population.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >>>>> policies?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
> >>>>> fire
> >>>>> handgun?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
> >>>> home self-defense.
> >>>
> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
> >>> pretending to be in combat.
> >>>
> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >>>> relative or yourself?
> >>>>
> >>>> A) This common crime?
> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> B) or more like this?
> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
> >>>
> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
> >>> least to me and mine.
> >>>
> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> {1} in the real world.
> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
> >>>> sound effects.
> >>>
> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
> >>
> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
> >> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
> >> different situation.
> >
> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
> >
> >
> > "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
> > Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
> > recent edition of the study are the following:
> >
> > In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
> > justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
> > firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
> > homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
> > justifiable homicide.
> > Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> > and 2016.
> > Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> > and 2016.
> >
> > When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
> > most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
> > guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
> >
> >
> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
> >
> > Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
> > one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
> > hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
> > bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
> > invitations.
> >
> >
> >
> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 20:59:21 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/1/2022 7:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.â€?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to
>>>>>>>>>> accept. If you can't
>>>>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the
>>>>>>>>> U.S. is worse than
>>>>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law
>>>>>>>> abiding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>>>>> overcome the
>>>>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>>>>> makes no
>>>>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>>>>> turn and post
>>>>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>>>> inherently?
>>>>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>>>>> have a point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>>>> French, Swedes
>>>>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>>>>> look up their
>>>>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going
>>>>>>> to assume that
>>>>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>>>>> their national
>>>>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>> difference in how
>>>>>>> people behave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>> don't change the
>>>>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>>>>> we will
>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make
>>>>>> a big
>>>>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>>>>> imagination? Or that
>>>>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>>>>> inhabitants of
>>>>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>>>>> why they act
>>>>>> as they do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>>>>> of a vivid
>>>>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>>>>> rates the
>>>>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I wonder if we have a natural experiment to use in
>>>>> comparison? Oh, maybe we do. The national 55mph speed
>>>>> limit was imposed on the States. Even States unwilling
>>>>> were coerced/bribed with the Highway Trust Fund into
>>>>> compliance, more or less[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how's speed limit compliance going?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/s88fcy/flow_of_traffic_on_the_beltline/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That conversation is ubiquitous- any expressway, any
>>>>> Interstate. So would you maintain that a change of law
>>>>> effected a change in countenance?
>>>>
>>>> Speed limits absolutely make a difference. No, they are not
>>>> perfect - and Andrew, you really need to drop the idea that
>>>> imperfect results are the same as zero results.
>>>>
>>>> Some cases in point: According to Wikipedia, the German
>>>> Autobahn has reported average speeds of 88 mph in its
>>>> unrestricted zones. It has 72 mph in its 75 mph (120 kph)
>>>> zones.
>>>>
>>>> In the U.S., Wyoming is noted for zero, or very lax speed
>>>> enforcement plus high speed limits (up to 80 mph). South
>>>> Dakota also allows speeds up to 80, and New Mexico allows up
>>>> to 75mph. Which states have the fastest drivers? "#1
>>>> Wyoming: 21.09% of drivers exceed 70 mph. #2 South Dakota:
>>>> 17.07% #3 New Mexico: 16.50% ."
>>>>
>>>> And in my own nearby city: For a couple years, the twisty
>>>> inner city freeway long had a bad reputation for both
>>>> speeding and serious crashes. Then came enforcement - sort
>>>> of. The city began using speed cameras, and I say "sort of"
>>>> because no ticket could be issued until the limit was
>>>> exceeded by 10 mph. The result? Speeding became a far
>>>> smaller problem, and serious crashes dropped even more.
>>>>
>>>> Then some legislators from the "Law and Order" party stepped
>>>> in and wrote laws to discourage the use of speed cameras.
>>>> Because The Constitution has a clause stating that anyone
>>>> can drive any speed they want to, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> The major point? There will always be speeders and other
>>>> assholes. But even though they are not perfect, laws DO
>>>> affect people's behaviors, especially when properly enforced.
>>>>
>>>> (BTW, Germany does use speed cameras.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, here we are, just as you wish.
>>>
>>> 'Shall not be infringed' has come to mean only calibers
>>> smaller than .50, no full auto, permanent record of purchase
>>> at the Federally licensed dealer, a Federal excise tax on
>>> firearms and ammunition. The various States add their own
>>> taxes, licensing[1] and restrictions including severe
>>> restrictions on carry[2]. Municipalities add even more
>>> infringements.
>>>
>>> I will assume your use of the word 'asshole' in place of
>>> 'driver' has some meaning in this conversation as well.
>>>
>>> [1] I can't take my ex to a pistol range near her home in IL
>>> without an Illinois FOID card. She doesn't own a firearm,
>>> but can't go into a range without the State card.
>>>
>>> [2] This is currently in litigation:
>>> https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/supreme-court-arguments-new-york-gun-case-signal-uphill-battle-defend-overly
>>
>>
>> I think that the best argument to Frank's assertions is that: "the
>> right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
>> is part of the fundamental law of the U.S.
>> But... it can be changed or deleted and I believe that the basic
>> Constitution has been amended some 27 times.
>>
>> So, logically, if possession/ownership of firearms is really such a
>> valid point of argument why hasn't the constitution been amended to
>> prohibit it?
>>
>> And before Frank starts waving his arms in the air and shouting, "It
>> should Be! It Should Be!" one might stop and give some consideration
>> to the fact that the U.S. is a democracy and the fundamental
>> philosophy behind a democracy is that the individual doesn't count.
>> The majority rules.
>>
>
>A democracy is an abomination (see also Hutus in re Tutsis).
>
>We are a Constitutional Republic, the difference being
>protection of minority rights from the majority and yes, I
>defend Mr Krygowski's right to not own a firearm.

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> > On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>> >>>>>>>>> are ...
>> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
>> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>> >>>>>>>>> Irish,
>> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>> >>>>>>>>> have far
>> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>> >>>>>>>>> up the
>> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>> >>>>>>>>> rape and
>> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>> >>>>>>>>> going to
>> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>> >>>>>>>>> to do
>> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>> >>>>>>>>> laws,
>> >>>>>>>>> etc.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>> >>>>>>>>> don't
>> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>> >>>>>>>>> about
>> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>> >>>>>>>> hallways
>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
>> >>>>>>> are
>> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>> >>>>>>> saying
>> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>> >>>>>>> afraid
>> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>> >>>>>> population.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>> >>>>> policies?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>> >>>>> fire
>> >>>>> handgun?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
>> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
>> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
>> >>>> home self-defense.
>> >>>
>> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
>> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
>> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>> >>> pretending to be in combat.
>> >>>
>> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>> >>>> relative or yourself?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A) This common crime?
>> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> B) or more like this?
>> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>> >>>
>> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
>> >>> least to me and mine.
>> >>>
>> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
>> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> {1} in the real world.
>> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
>> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
>> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
>> >>>> sound effects.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
>> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
>> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
>> >>
>> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
>> >> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
>> >> different situation.
>> >
>> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
>> >
>> >
>> > "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
>> > Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
>> > recent edition of the study are the following:
>> >
>> > In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
>> > justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
>> > firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
>> > homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
>> > justifiable homicide.
>> > Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>> > and 2016.
>> > Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>> > and 2016.
>> >
>> > When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
>> > most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
>> > guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
>> >
>> >
>> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
>> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>> >
>> > Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
>> > one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
>> > hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
>> > bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
>> > invitations.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
>
>Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
>home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
>
>One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from me. I don't know if they've figured out the
>motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the front door in the dead of night and started shooting
>at several people (not family members) gathered in the living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
>not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody shot back, because how would you know
>to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
>
>The other event I knew about involved the vice president of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
>an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
>door at night, and the VP came to the door in his pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
>gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
>him as he ran, killing him.
>
>Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV action shootings.
>
>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
>
>"More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
>I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
>
>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
>
>"But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
>
>“It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said, despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun to protect themselves — and the average person had “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
>
>"Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large majority of firearms researchers, however, “think that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr. Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown to report the timing and frequencies of events inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
>
>"Additionally, people involved in gun violence often claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias that can make data unreliable. And when trying to measure rare events, any margin of survey error can create huge variables in the results."
>
>Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers, however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
>
>And even if it were true, how many developed countries does that apply to? Why?
>
>- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
><frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> > On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>> >
>>> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>> >>>>>>>>> are ...
>>> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>> >>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>> >>>>>>>>> have far
>>> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>> >>>>>>>>> up the
>>> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>> >>>>>>>>> rape and
>>> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>> >>>>>>>>> going to
>>> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>> >>>>>>>>> to do
>>> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>> >>>>>>>>> laws,
>>> >>>>>>>>> etc.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>> >>>>>>>>> don't
>>> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>> >>>>>>>>> about
>>> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>>> >>>>>>>> hallways
>>> >>>>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
>>> >>>>>>> are
>>> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>> >>>>>>> saying
>>> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>> >>>>>>> afraid
>>> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>> >>>>>> population.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>> >>>>> policies?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>>> >>>>> fire
>>> >>>>> handgun?
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
>>> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
>>> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
>>> >>>> home self-defense.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
>>> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
>>> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>>> >>> pretending to be in combat.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>> >>>> relative or yourself?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> A) This common crime?
>>> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> B) or more like this?
>>> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
>>> >>> least to me and mine.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
>>> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>>> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> {1} in the real world.
>>> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
>>> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
>>> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>>> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
>>> >>>> sound effects.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
>>> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
>>> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
>>> >>
>>> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
>>> >> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
>>> >> different situation.
>>> >
>>> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
>>> > Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
>>> > recent edition of the study are the following:
>>> >
>>> > In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
>>> > justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
>>> > firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
>>> > homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
>>> > justifiable homicide.
>>> > Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
>>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
>>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>>> > and 2016.
>>> > Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
>>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
>>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>>> > and 2016.
>>> >
>>> > When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
>>> > most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
>>> > guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
>>> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>>> >
>>> > Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
>>> > one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
>>> > hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
>>> > bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
>>> > invitations.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
>>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
>>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
>>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
>>
>>Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
>>home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
>>
>>One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from me. I don't know if they've figured out the
>>motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the front door in the dead of night and started shooting
>>at several people (not family members) gathered in the living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
>>not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody shot back, because how would you know
>>to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
>>
>>The other event I knew about involved the vice president of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
>>an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
>>door at night, and the VP came to the door in his pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
>>gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
>>him as he ran, killing him.
>>
>>Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV action shootings.
>>
>>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
>>
>>"More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
>>I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
>>
>>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
>>
>>"But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
>>
>>“It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said, despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun to protect themselves — and the average person had “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
>>
>>"Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large majority of firearms researchers, however, “think that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr. Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown to report the timing and frequencies of events inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
>>
>>"Additionally, people involved in gun violence often claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias that can make data unreliable. And when trying to measure rare events, any margin of survey error can create huge variables in the results."
>>
>>Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers, however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
>>
>>And even if it were true, how many developed countries does that apply to? Why?
>>
>>- Frank Krygowski
>
>https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
>https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
>http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
>https://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html
>https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm/
>
>(:-)
Sorry, I missed one. See
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 6:56:03 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
> >>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>>>>>> Americans,
> >>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
> >>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that have far
> >>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought up the
> >>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >>>>>>> rape and
> >>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >>>>>>> laws,
> >>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>> _now_.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >>>>>> themselves for  protection because their hallways
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
> >>>>> are
> >>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of saying
> >>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
> >>>>> afraid
> >>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>>>> different weaponry?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>>> population.
> >>>>
> >>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >>>
> >>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >>> policies?
> >>>
> >>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid fire
> >>> handgun?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
> >> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >>
> >> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
> >> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
> >> home self-defense.
> >
> > I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
> > two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
> > don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
> > pretending to be in combat.
> >
> >> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >> relative or yourself?
> >>
> >> A)Â This common crime?
> >> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >>
> >>
> >> B) or more like this?
> >> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >
> >
> > "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
> >
> > Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
> > least to me and mine.
> >
> > But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
> > to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
> > Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
> >
> >
> >> {1} in the real world.
> >> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
> >> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
> >> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
> >> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
> >> sound effects.
> >
> > I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
> >
> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
>
> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in the
> morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly different
> situation.
>
> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>
>
>
> [1]Hunters of possibly-lethal-when wounded game, from deer
> to moose, and hunters in areas of probable danger from
> wolves, etc (Heck, even cyclists on the tundra, as 3 friends
> who rode north out of Inuvik learned regarding polar bears)
> ought to damned well have a sidearm handy. Those are
> frequently M1911A1 in .45ACP.
>

Polar bears and a 45ACP? I'd say no no no. Hitting him with that might just make him mad.

> Then again, some guys don't. Not far from here recently:
> https://dailydodge.com/columbia-county-hunter-rescued/
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 7:00:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 15:34:25 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
> >>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>>>>> Americans,
> >>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
> >>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that have far
> >>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought up the
> >>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >>>>>> rape and
> >>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going to
> >>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >>>>>> to do
> >>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >>>>>> laws,
> >>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >>>>>> don't
> >>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >>>>>> about
> >>>>>> _now_.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >>>>> themselves for  protection because their hallways and
> >>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>>>
> >>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans are
> >>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of saying
> >>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>>>
> >>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are afraid
> >>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>>> different weaponry?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>> population.
> >>>
> >>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >>
> >> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >> policies?
> >>
> >> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid fire
> >> handgun?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
> >Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >
> >I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
> >the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
> >home self-defense.
> >
> >OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >relative or yourself?
> >
> >A) This common crime?
> >https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >
> >B) or more like this?
> >https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >
> >
> >{1} in the real world.
> >In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
> >which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
> >wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also spray
> >huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic sound
> >effects.
> Somewhere I read a study of "gun fights" involving police. The most
> common distance is something like 3 feet and all parties empty their
> weapons and a very low, something like only 10%, resulted in injuries
> (:-)
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

I'm not sure about gun fights with police. But gun fights involving non police are almost always, 99+%, within a few feet. Arms distance. And lots and lots of bullets are shot. In every which direction imaginable. At, around, above, below, behind said targets. Lots of injuries, sometimes death.. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bnag bang. Until the guns are empty.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:20:03 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:53:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 3/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes says I was the one who
> >>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the topic of Rape, per se.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite where someone other than you
> >>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must have missed that.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per se" - " a Latin
> >>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a deliberate attempt to
> >>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less violent crime then
> >>>>>>>> the U.S.?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the topic of rape at the
> >>>>>>> same time you used other words?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Wow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in some manner
> >>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your ego requires
> >>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to accept. If you can't
> >>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own dementia. After all
> >>>>>> that's what Tom does.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your arguments.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the U.S. is worse than
> >>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've never posited a
> >>>>> reason for the differences.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that Americans are
> >>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why would that be?
> >>>>
> >>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
> >>>>
> >>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law abiding then the
> >>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far fewer gun crimes
> >>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law abiding.
> >>>>
> >>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic to argue "why
> >>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
> >>>>
> >>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited Canada as evidence
> >>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will reduce gun
> >>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the Canadians are
> >>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip sliding away and
> >>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more law abiding.
> >>>>
> >>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap yourself on the
> >>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again, overcome the
> >>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It makes no
> >>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and turn and post
> >>>> suppositions.
> >>>
> >>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ... inherently?
> >>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll have a point.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish, French, Swedes
> >>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun deaths than the U..S.
> >>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to look up their
> >>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
> >>>
> >>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going to assume that
> >>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with their national
> >>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big difference in how
> >>> people behave.
> >>>
> >>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>>
> >>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And don't change the
> >>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
> >>
> >> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject, we will
> >> continue.
> >>
> >> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >> difference in how people behave."
> >>
> >> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
> >>
> >> Which really means what? That you have a vivid imagination? Or that
> >> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of inhabitants of
> >> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree why they act
> >> as they do?
> >>
> >> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples of a vivid
> >> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
> >>
> >> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime rates the
> >> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
> >>
> >> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just facts.
> >
> >OK, John, let's return to some "facts" you've repeatedly reported.
> >
> >On many occasions, you've discussed with apparent approval the extremely
> >strict laws of Singapore, everything from spitting on sidewalks to
> >dealing drugs. Each time you've done that, you ended with statements
> >like "And in Singapore, people don't do those things."
> >
> >Your implication was NOT that Singaporeans are genetically prone to be
> >well behaved people. Your implication was that properly enforced laws DO
> >cause people to change their behavior.
> >
> >But you work just as hard to imply that the differences between American
> >crime data and that of Canada, Britain, Ireland etc. are _not_ the legal
> >policies and other government and social policies. And when I ask for
> >details, YOU change the subject.
> >
> >Care to tell me why what works for Singapore, Canada, France, Germany
> >and more would not work in the U.S.? Is it American genetics? Really?
> Nice try. I state that Canadians are much more law abiding and you
> travel all over the world to prove your point.
>
> But to answer your question, yes, Singapore has extremely strict laws,
> but what is more to the point is that they enforce these laws.
>
> If you, for example, are caught with 30 grams of morphine, or more,
> the penalty is death. And you can make an appeal to the President of
> the country and he can pardon you but the numbers pardoned since
> Singapore became a nation probably can be counted on one hand.
>
> For holding a hand phone in your hand for driving it is a $1000 fine
> and/or 6 months in jail. for a second offense it is $2,000 and/or 12
> months in jail.
>
> And no jury trials in Singapore, no lawyer jabbering away trying to
> influence a jury. You go before the Judge, the police present their
> evidence, you present your's if any, and the Judge rules.
>
> Then the sentence is carried out. No long drawn out appeals. Straight
> into the hoosegow.
>
> Another point is that Singapore has mandatory national service for 2
> years after high school. Which can be, the Military, the Police or
> what they call Civil Defense which could be, I believe, the Fire
> Department or Ambulance Service.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 11:39:41 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> > On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>>>>>>> >
> >> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
> >> >>>>>>>>> are ...
> >> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
> >> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
> >> >>>>>>>>> Irish,
> >> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
> >> >>>>>>>>> have far
> >> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
> >> >>>>>>>>> up the
> >> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >> >>>>>>>>> rape and
> >> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >> >>>>>>>>> going to
> >> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >> >>>>>>>>> to do
> >> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >> >>>>>>>>> laws,
> >> >>>>>>>>> etc.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >> >>>>>>>>> don't
> >> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >> >>>>>>>>> about
> >> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
> >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
> >> >>>>>>>> hallways
> >> >>>>>>>> and
> >> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
> >> >>>>>>> are
> >> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
> >> >>>>>>> saying
> >> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
> >> >>>>>>> afraid
> >> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >> >>>>>> population.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >> >>>>> policies?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
> >> >>>>> fire
> >> >>>>> handgun?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
> >> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
> >> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
> >> >>>> home self-defense.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
> >> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
> >> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
> >> >>> pretending to be in combat.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >> >>>> relative or yourself?
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> A) This common crime?
> >> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> B) or more like this?
> >> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
> >> >>> least to me and mine.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
> >> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
> >> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> {1} in the real world.
> >> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
> >> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
> >> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
> >> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
> >> >>>> sound effects.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
> >> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
> >> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
> >> >>
> >> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
> >> >> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
> >> >> different situation.
> >> >
> >> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
> >> > Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
> >> > recent edition of the study are the following:
> >> >
> >> > In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
> >> > justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
> >> > firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
> >> > homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
> >> > justifiable homicide.
> >> > Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
> >> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
> >> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> >> > and 2016.
> >> > Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
> >> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
> >> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> >> > and 2016.
> >> >
> >> > When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
> >> > most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
> >> > guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
> >> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
> >> >
> >> > Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
> >> > one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
> >> > hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
> >> > bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
> >> > invitations.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
> >> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
> >> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
> >> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
> >
> >Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
> >home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
> >
> >One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from me. I don't know if they've figured out the
> >motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the front door in the dead of night and started shooting
> >at several people (not family members) gathered in the living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
> >not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody shot back, because how would you know
> >to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
> >
> >The other event I knew about involved the vice president of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
> >an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
> >door at night, and the VP came to the door in his pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
> >gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
> >him as he ran, killing him.
> >
> >Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV action shootings.
> >
> >> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
> >
> >"More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
> >I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
> >
> >https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
> >
> >"But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
> >
> >“It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said, despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun to protect themselves — and the average person had “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
> >
> >"Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A study cited by the C.D..C. indicates a “range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large majority of firearms researchers, however, “think that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr.. Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown to report the timing and frequencies of events inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
> >
> >"Additionally, people involved in gun violence often claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias that can make data unreliable. And when trying to measure rare events, any margin of survey error can create huge variables in the results."
> >
> >Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers, however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
> >
> >And even if it were true, how many developed countries does that apply to? Why?
> >
> >- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 11:51:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> ><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> > On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>>>>>>>> >
> >>> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
> >>> >>>>>>>>> are ...
> >>> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
> >>> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Irish,
> >>> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
> >>> >>>>>>>>> have far
> >>> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
> >>> >>>>>>>>> up the
> >>> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >>> >>>>>>>>> rape and
> >>> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >>> >>>>>>>>> going to
> >>> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >>> >>>>>>>>> to do
> >>> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >>> >>>>>>>>> laws,
> >>> >>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >>> >>>>>>>>> don't
> >>> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >>> >>>>>>>>> about
> >>> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >>> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >>> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >>> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >>> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
> >>> >>>>>>>> hallways
> >>> >>>>>>>> and
> >>> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
> >>> >>>>>>> are
> >>> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
> >>> >>>>>>> saying
> >>> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
> >>> >>>>>>> afraid
> >>> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >>> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >>> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >>> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>> >>>>>> population.
> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >>> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >>> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >>> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >>> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >>> >>>>> policies?
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >>> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
> >>> >>>>> fire
> >>> >>>>> handgun?
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >>> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
> >>> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
> >>> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
> >>> >>>> home self-defense.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
> >>> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
> >>> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
> >>> >>> pretending to be in combat.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >>> >>>> relative or yourself?
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> A) This common crime?
> >>> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> B) or more like this?
> >>> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
> >>> >>> least to me and mine.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
> >>> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
> >>> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>> {1} in the real world.
> >>> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
> >>> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
> >>> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
> >>> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
> >>> >>>> sound effects.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
> >>> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
> >>> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
> >>> >>
> >>> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
> >>> >> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
> >>> >> different situation.
> >>> >
> >>> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
> >>> > Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
> >>> > recent edition of the study are the following:
> >>> >
> >>> > In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
> >>> > justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
> >>> > firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
> >>> > homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
> >>> > justifiable homicide.
> >>> > Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
> >>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
> >>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> >>> > and 2016.
> >>> > Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
> >>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
> >>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> >>> > and 2016.
> >>> >
> >>> > When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
> >>> > most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
> >>> > guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
> >>> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
> >>> >
> >>> > Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
> >>> > one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
> >>> > hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
> >>> > bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
> >>> > invitations.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
> >>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
> >>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
> >>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
> >>
> >>Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
> >>home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
> >>
> >>One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from me. I don't know if they've figured out the
> >>motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the front door in the dead of night and started shooting
> >>at several people (not family members) gathered in the living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
> >>not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody shot back, because how would you know
> >>to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
> >>
> >>The other event I knew about involved the vice president of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
> >>an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
> >>door at night, and the VP came to the door in his pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
> >>gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
> >>him as he ran, killing him.
> >>
> >>Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV action shootings.
> >>
> >>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
> >>
> >>"More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
> >>I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
> >>
> >>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
> >>
> >>"But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
> >>
> >>“It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said, despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun to protect themselves — and the average person had “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
> >>
> >>"Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large majority of firearms researchers, however, “think that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr.. Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown to report the timing and frequencies of events inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
> >>
> >>"Additionally, people involved in gun violence often claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias that can make data unreliable. And when trying to measure rare events, any margin of survey error can create huge variables in the results."
> >>
> >>Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers, however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
> >>
> >>And even if it were true, how many developed countries does that apply to? Why?
> >>
> >>- Frank Krygowski
> >
> >https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
> >https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
> >http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
> >https://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html
> >https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm/
> >
> >(:-)
> Sorry, I missed one. See
> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145

On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 23:54:20 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:20:03 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:53:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/1/2022 7:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes says I was the one who
>> >>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the topic of Rape, per se.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite where someone other than you
>> >>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must have missed that.
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per se" - " a Latin
>> >>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.”
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a deliberate attempt to
>> >>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less violent crime then
>> >>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the topic of rape at the
>> >>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Wow.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in some manner
>> >>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your ego requires
>> >>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to accept. If you can't
>> >>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own dementia. After all
>> >>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your arguments.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the U.S. is worse than
>> >>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've never posited a
>> >>>>> reason for the differences.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that Americans are
>> >>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why would that be?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law abiding then the
>> >>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far fewer gun crimes
>> >>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law abiding.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic to argue "why
>> >>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>> >>>>
>> >>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited Canada as evidence
>> >>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will reduce gun
>> >>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the Canadians are
>> >>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip sliding away and
>> >>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more law abiding.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap yourself on the
>> >>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again, overcome the
>> >>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It makes no
>> >>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and turn and post
>> >>>> suppositions.
>> >>>
>> >>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ... inherently?
>> >>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll have a point.
>> >>>
>> >>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish, French, Swedes
>> >>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun deaths than the U.S.
>> >>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to look up their
>> >>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going to assume that
>> >>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with their national
>> >>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>> >>>
>> >>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big difference in how
>> >>> people behave.
>> >>>
>> >>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>> >>>
>> >>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And don't change the
>> >>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>> >>
>> >> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject, we will
>> >> continue.
>> >>
>> >> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>> >> difference in how people behave."
>> >>
>> >> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>> >>
>> >> Which really means what? That you have a vivid imagination? Or that
>> >> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of inhabitants of
>> >> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree why they act
>> >> as they do?
>> >>
>> >> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples of a vivid
>> >> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>> >>
>> >> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime rates the
>> >> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>> >>
>> >> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just facts.
>> >
>> >OK, John, let's return to some "facts" you've repeatedly reported.
>> >
>> >On many occasions, you've discussed with apparent approval the extremely
>> >strict laws of Singapore, everything from spitting on sidewalks to
>> >dealing drugs. Each time you've done that, you ended with statements
>> >like "And in Singapore, people don't do those things."
>> >
>> >Your implication was NOT that Singaporeans are genetically prone to be
>> >well behaved people. Your implication was that properly enforced laws DO
>> >cause people to change their behavior.
>> >
>> >But you work just as hard to imply that the differences between American
>> >crime data and that of Canada, Britain, Ireland etc. are _not_ the legal
>> >policies and other government and social policies. And when I ask for
>> >details, YOU change the subject.
>> >
>> >Care to tell me why what works for Singapore, Canada, France, Germany
>> >and more would not work in the U.S.? Is it American genetics? Really?
>> Nice try. I state that Canadians are much more law abiding and you
>> travel all over the world to prove your point.
>>
>> But to answer your question, yes, Singapore has extremely strict laws,
>> but what is more to the point is that they enforce these laws.
>>
>> If you, for example, are caught with 30 grams of morphine, or more,
>> the penalty is death. And you can make an appeal to the President of
>> the country and he can pardon you but the numbers pardoned since
>> Singapore became a nation probably can be counted on one hand.
>>
>> For holding a hand phone in your hand for driving it is a $1000 fine
>> and/or 6 months in jail. for a second offense it is $2,000 and/or 12
>> months in jail.
>>
>> And no jury trials in Singapore, no lawyer jabbering away trying to
>> influence a jury. You go before the Judge, the police present their
>> evidence, you present your's if any, and the Judge rules.
>>
>> Then the sentence is carried out. No long drawn out appeals. Straight
>> into the hoosegow.
>>
>> Another point is that Singapore has mandatory national service for 2
>> years after high school. Which can be, the Military, the Police or
>> what they call Civil Defense which could be, I believe, the Fire
>> Department or Ambulance Service.
>
>US did that from WW2 up to the mid 1970s. Compulsory military service. Or go to college. I guess they added that clause so kids with enough money to pay for college did not have to waste their years in the military. Men only. Was the USA better and safer due to this mostly forced military service in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s? And if it was better in the good old days, can this be attributed to the forced military service compared to the miniscule military service today?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> As an aside Singapore has something like 170 police officers per
>> 100,000 population and the U.S, has 239, yet walking around in
>> Singapore you frequently see police officers while I can't remember
>> ever seeing a policeman on the streets in the U.S.
>
>I used Google to look up Singapore. I always thought it was at the tip of India. But no, its at the tip of Malaysia. Sri Lanka is at the tip of India. Singapore is 281 square miles. 5.7 million people. So using your numbers of 17 police per 100k, we get a total of 9,690 police in Singapore. That works out to 34.5 cops per square mile. So one cop standing on every single street corner. USA has about 330 million people. Using your numbers I get about 788,700 cops in the USA. Google says the contiguous USA is 3.1 million square miles of land. I am throwing out Alaska and Hawaii for this. We end up with about 1/4 cop per square mile in the USA. So in comparison, we have 34.5 to 0.25 cops per square mile. 138 times more cops per square mile in Singapore. Its not too surprising to see cops in Singapore and not in the USA.
>>
>> Do you believe that this would be acceptable in the U.S.?
>
>No and No. Compulsory military service will never be required in the USA again. Even the politicians who are so pro military know darn well they would be hung by the neck until dead if they even muttered this out loud. And no the USA is not going to pay the cost of having as many police as Singapore does.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 00:51:37 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 11:51:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>> ><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> > On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> are ...
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Irish,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> have far
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> up the
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> rape and
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> going to
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> to do
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> laws,
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> etc.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> don't
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> about
>> >>> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>> >>> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>> >>> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>> >>> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>> >>> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>> >>> >>>>>>>> hallways
>> >>> >>>>>>>> and
>> >>> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
>> >>> >>>>>>> are
>> >>> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>> >>> >>>>>>> saying
>> >>> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>> >>> >>>>>>> afraid
>> >>> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>> >>> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>> >>> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>> >>> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>> >>> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>> >>> >>>>>> population.
>> >>> >>>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>> >>> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>> >>> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>> >>> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>> >>> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>> >>> >>>>> policies?
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>> >>> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>> >>> >>>>> fire
>> >>> >>>>> handgun?
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>> >>> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
>> >>> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
>> >>> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
>> >>> >>>> home self-defense.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
>> >>> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
>> >>> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>> >>> >>> pretending to be in combat.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>> >>> >>>> relative or yourself?
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> A) This common crime?
>> >>> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>> B) or more like this?
>> >>> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>> >>> >>>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
>> >>> >>> least to me and mine.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
>> >>> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>> >>> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>>> {1} in the real world.
>> >>> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
>> >>> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
>> >>> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>> >>> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
>> >>> >>>> sound effects.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>> >>> >>>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
>> >>> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
>> >>> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
>> >>> >> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
>> >>> >> different situation.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> > "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
>> >>> > Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
>> >>> > recent edition of the study are the following:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
>> >>> > justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
>> >>> > firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
>> >>> > homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
>> >>> > justifiable homicide.
>> >>> > Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
>> >>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
>> >>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>> >>> > and 2016.
>> >>> > Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
>> >>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
>> >>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>> >>> > and 2016.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
>> >>> > most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
>> >>> > guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
>> >>> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
>> >>> > one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
>> >>> > hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
>> >>> > bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
>> >>> > invitations.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> >
>> >>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
>> >>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
>> >>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
>> >>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
>> >>
>> >>Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
>> >>home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
>> >>
>> >>One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from me. I don't know if they've figured out the
>> >>motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the front door in the dead of night and started shooting
>> >>at several people (not family members) gathered in the living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
>> >>not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody shot back, because how would you know
>> >>to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
>> >>
>> >>The other event I knew about involved the vice president of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
>> >>an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
>> >>door at night, and the VP came to the door in his pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
>> >>gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
>> >>him as he ran, killing him.
>> >>
>> >>Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV action shootings.
>> >>
>> >>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
>> >>
>> >>"More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
>> >>I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
>> >>
>> >>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
>> >>
>> >>"But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
>> >>
>> >>“It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said, despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun to protect themselves — and the average person had “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
>> >>
>> >>"Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large majority of firearms researchers, however, “think that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr. Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown to report the timing and frequencies of events inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
>> >>
>> >>"Additionally, people involved in gun violence often claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias that can make data unreliable. And when trying to measure rare events, any margin of survey error can create huge variables in the results."
>> >>
>> >>Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers, however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
>> >>
>> >>And even if it were true, how many developed countries does that apply to? Why?
>> >>
>> >>- Frank Krygowski
>> >
>> >https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
>> >https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
>> >http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
>> >https://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html
>> >https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm/
>> >
>> >(:-)
>> Sorry, I missed one. See
>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145
>
>John, I'm worried about you. The link above is a listing of results from a survey of gun owners. One third or something of the respondents said the gun saved their lives or property. Or something like that. You and I both know survey answers are not facts. They are just opinions. Especially in regard to something like whether a gun saved someone's life. The above link is about as credible as asking Tommy if he is a genius. Would you submit that as a fact in a court of law?
>
Well, of course. After all Frank links to wild eyed "gun grabbers" so
why can't I link to a sensible, sober, analysis of gun owners.(:-)
--
Cheers,