novaBBS - rec.bicycles.tech - Off road hazards

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 15:49:17 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/2/2022 3:03 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:25:32 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/2/2022 1:11 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> 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 ÃÆÃâÃÂ¢Ã¢âÂ¬ÃÂ¡ 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)Ãâ 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/
>>> That was the specific recommendation of the local guide in
>>> Inuvik, who is a professional guide and hunter, and so
>>> that's what my friends carried.
>
>>
>> Huh. Over on the YouTube gun videos, they always lovingly refer to the 45 ACP as a "Man Stopper". But polar bears are about 5 times bigger than a man. I think a 45 ACP against a polar bear would be akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight saying. Now I am not saying ANY pistol is good against a bear. No. Unless its one of those half inch caliber pistols that breaks your arm when you shoot it. Big rifles are needed to shoot bears. Not hand held pistols.
>>
>
>I'm not an expert but I think you have that right.
>
>If one were hunting bear (pick a subspecies) a large bore
>rifle with a good long distance scope would seem prudent!
>But as in other situations I mentioned above, sometimes
>things go awry and a personal sidearm is your last defense.

Click here to read the complete article

On 3/2/2022 7:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:24:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/2022 9:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:53:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> First, thank you for confirming my main point: Laws and policies _do_
>> make a difference in people's behavior. The corollary is that proper
>> changes in U.S. law would probably bring improvements in U.S. crime rates.
>>
>>> Do you believe that this would be acceptable in the U.S.?
>>
>> U.S. laws and attitudes change slowly. Of course you couldn't
>> immediately impose that entire legal system on the U.S. But that does
>> not prove that none of its features could ever be implemented. And
>> obviously, other changes in laws that you did not mention are quite
>> possible, and would be beneficial.
>>
>> "This is just the way it is" is a lazy man's response.
>
> But Frank, many, probably most, of the laws in Singapore are echoed in
> the U.S. or States legal codes. Speeding, for example, which I read is
> a major cause of highway deaths, is illegal both in Singapore and the
> U.S.
>
> Theft, murder, rape, assault, all against the law in both countries.
> BUT... Singapore is rated the 2nd safest city in the world while in
> the U.S..... Well the "Best" seems to be Washington at number 7.
>
> The difference is, of course, that Singapore enforces their laws. Or
> perhaps to be more realistic "Singapore enforces their laws and the
> penalties are sufficiently severe to actually penalize the wrong
> doer". Holding a hand phone in your hand while driving merits a $1,000
> fine and/or 6 months in jail.
>
> The results is, of course, that you don't see people with hand phone
> in hand while driving.
>
> The difference? I read that:
> U.S.
> The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving
> leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
> Nearly 390,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by
> texting while driving.
> 1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
> texting and driving.
> Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than
> driving drunk.
>
> Singapore:
> Errr I don't find any.

Fine. I'm against speeding. I'm against driving while talking on a
phone. (Even a hands-free one, BTW). And I'm saying that the U.S. could
improve its crime statistics by changing some of its laws and legal
practices. That the bad data on U.S. crimes are not "just because those
people are Americans," or whatever.

We are finally in violent agreement.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/2/2022 6:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 12:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 10:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 8:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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 ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ 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)Ã‚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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Benefits vs. detriments, John. Benefits vs. detriments. I
>>> can list the benefits of bicycling (again!) if necessary.
>>> They've repeatedly been shown to tremendously outweigh the
>>> detriments.
>>>
>>> What are the practical benefits of letting any macho nutcase
>>> buy things like AR rifles? I don't believe you've ever
>>> answered that question!
>>>
>>> You also haven't answered the closely related question of
>>> how you manage to get by without owning one. ISTM that's
>>> proof these guns are far from essential.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For a roughly similar price range and a roughly similar
>> installed base of both products ( bicycles and firearms)
>> your personal bias seems at least out of step with general
>> USA opinion. Which is fine, but you're not the arbiter and
>> a large number of people see the problem differently.
>
> That statement avoided answering the question. What are the
> practical benefits of letting any macho nutcase by things
> like AR rifles? After all, we can count the detriments,
> starting with body counts.
>
> The most cogent answer I've heard is here:
> https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0?t=101 up to 2:00
>
> although the rest of that is certainly worth attention. Lots
> of good points.
>

Click here to read the complete article

On 3/2/2022 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:24:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/1/2022 9:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:53:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> First, thank you for confirming my main point: Laws and policies _do_
>> make a difference in people's behavior. The corollary is that proper
>> changes in U.S. law would probably bring improvements in U.S. crime rates.
>>
>>> Do you believe that this would be acceptable in the U.S.?
>>
>> U.S. laws and attitudes change slowly. Of course you couldn't
>> immediately impose that entire legal system on the U.S. But that does
>> not prove that none of its features could ever be implemented. And
>> obviously, other changes in laws that you did not mention are quite
>> possible, and would be beneficial.
>>
>> "This is just the way it is" is a lazy man's response.
>
> But Frank, many, probably most, of the laws in Singapore are echoed in
> the U.S. or States legal codes. Speeding, for example, which I read is
> a major cause of highway deaths, is illegal both in Singapore and the
> U.S.
>
> Theft, murder, rape, assault, all against the law in both countries.
> BUT... Singapore is rated the 2nd safest city in the world while in
> the U.S..... Well the "Best" seems to be Washington at number 7.
>
> The difference is, of course, that Singapore enforces their laws. Or
> perhaps to be more realistic "Singapore enforces their laws and the
> penalties are sufficiently severe to actually penalize the wrong
> doer". Holding a hand phone in your hand while driving merits a $1,000
> fine and/or 6 months in jail.
>
> The results is, of course, that you don't see people with hand phone
> in hand while driving.
>
> The difference? I read that:
> U.S.
> The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving
> leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
> Nearly 390,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by
> texting while driving.
> 1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
> texting and driving.
> Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than
> driving drunk.
>
> Singapore:
> Errr I don't find any.
>

USA is different:

https://priceza.us/list-cheapest-www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-feces-attack-suspect-curses-at-judge-20220302-ikxahw67yzhdrfjd2ivfnpj6ta-story.html

44 priors including multiple assaults and outstanding
warrants. Addressed the judge with, "F**k you, bitch" _AND
WAS THEN RELEASED WITHOUT BAIL_. At which point he was
arrested for assaulting a Jewish man (yelling 'f**king Jew',
spitting on him and taking a swing at him)

Some people assume I exaggerate when I say criminals have
rights but taxpayers do not. Says the man spat on and swung
at, “There’s no law in this city,” said Brooklyn victim
Menachem Minkowitz to the Daily News in an exclusive interview

https://priceza.us/list-cheapest-www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-feces-suspect-anti-semitic-hate-crime-spit-threat-20220302-7rkdauq6qzbm3f3zt5fsorgkw4-story.html

hours after the Tuesday hearing. “I’m glad he’s caught. I
feel terrible for that woman. I’m very disappointed with how
the city is handling these situations.”

Now, there's an even tempered soul. My comments would not
have included 'very disappointed'. YMMV

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

On 3/2/2022 6:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 6:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:10:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Benefits vs. detriments, John. Benefits vs. detriments. I
>>> can list the
>>> benefits of bicycling (again!) if necessary. They've
>>> repeatedly been
>>> shown to tremendously outweigh the detriments.
>>
>> But Frank your "benefits" or at least the ones usually
>> stated like
>> exercise, etc. can better, i.e. on a time basis, or
>> economically, be
>> provided by other types of exercise such as running or
>> jogging or even
>> using a stair climber or other exercise device.
>
> No, John. Sorry. You've apparently forgotten many of the
> benefits of bicycling. Maybe you should start a new non-gun
> thread and we can discuss those in detail, to remind you.
> But I'll mention just a couple below.
>
>> I might also mention that the freedom to posses firearms
>> is enshrined
>> in the U.S.'s fundamental law.
>
> <sigh> As mentioned countless times, the second amendment
> does NOT prohibit restrictions on gun ownership. It does NOT
> allow any type of gun at all. It does NOT mean nobody can be
> prohibited from owning one. Countless court cases have
> proven this. How can that not be obvious??
>
>> I read on "bicycle" sites that Umpteen Gazillions USians
>> ride a
>> bicycle.... at least once a year...which is akin to saying
>> that as you
>> got a little tiddly at the New Years Party you are a
>> confirmed
>> drunkard.
>>
>> The U.S.census tells us that less then 1,000,000, in the
>> U.S. actually
>> use a bicycle to commute to work, while Andrew tells us
>> that 20
>> million own AR type rifles.
>
> You seem to have set up a couple of weird comparisons.
> You've alluded to all owners of bikes, then a small subset
> of cyclists, then the owners of one type of gun.
>
> Maybe you should compare avid bike commuters with avid AR
> shooters.
>
> An avid bike commuter might buy or build something like this:
> https://bikerumor.com/2022-trek-district-commuter-bike-brings-premium-belt-drive-dynamo-hub-model-to-u-s/
> - that is, something with a stable, sturdy frame, perhaps
> accessorized with fenders, rack, kickstand, dyno lighting,
> sturdy tires, good bags and lock. That would make it a good
> tool to use a lot in place of a car.
>
> An avid AR dude might accessorize too. A sling, a folding
> stock, red dot sights, faster trigger, maybe even a bump
> stock and more. Those would make it a good tool for avidly
> shooting a couple dozen schoolkids, or even more nightclub
> attendees, or even more concert attendees. You know, really
> using the rapid fire, compact maneuverability, large
> magazine capabilities designed in as combat features.
>
> Bike advantages: Better health AND less pollution AND less
> danger for others by replacing car trips, just for a start.
>
> AR advantages: Better for killing many people quickly. Or
> pretending to.
>

I will never change your fantasy opinion about magic
lead-spraying AR-15 (so much magic-er than the AK
platform!). I have given up. Call it what you will but it's
a regular bog-standard semi, believe it, or not, as you wish.

But at least admit, as an engineer, that 'utility' is
subjective in the absolute sense. One man's essential STi
system is another's frivolous electronic gee-gaw.

Finding an optimal or most energy efficient or most cost
effective solution to a specific problem is engineering.
Deciding what people ought to want is a different bizarre
field - social engineering.

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

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:16:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/2/2022 12:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 10:10 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 8:40 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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 Ãâ 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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Benefits vs. detriments, John. Benefits vs. detriments. I
>>> can list the benefits of bicycling (again!) if necessary.
>>> They've repeatedly been shown to tremendously outweigh the
>>> detriments.
>>>
>>> What are the practical benefits of letting any macho nutcase
>>> buy things like AR rifles? I don't believe you've ever
>>> answered that question!
>>>
>>> You also haven't answered the closely related question of
>>> how you manage to get by without owning one. ISTM that's
>>> proof these guns are far from essential.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> For a roughly similar price range and a roughly similar installed base
>> of both products ( bicycles and firearms) your personal bias seems at
>> least out of step with general USA opinion. Which is fine, but you're
>> not the arbiter and a large number of people see the problem differently.
>
>That statement avoided answering the question. What are the practical
>benefits of letting any macho nutcase by things like AR rifles? After
>all, we can count the detriments, starting with body counts.
>

Click here to read the complete article

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:26:26 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:25:38 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:02:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 00:51:37 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> ><ritzann...@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 ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ 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)ÃÂ 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 Statisticsâ 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?
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>Its 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 thats 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 dont 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 thats 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.(:-)
>> Further to the above. I wonder whether the good
>> russell...@yahoo.com actually read the report I listed?
>
>Yes I did read it. Thus my comments about it being a survey of gun owners and how the guns saved their lives. And my comments about it being just opinion, not factual. I believe all of the posts you made were in support of how guns in the hands of the public saved lives. In a counter to Frank's opinion that guns with civilians just leads to more dead people. Therefore, I expected your links to be factual counters to Frank's view. Facts showing guns with civilians saved lives. But the link you put at the end was just opinions of gun owners who said their guns saved their lives. Kind of like asking car speeders if they were speeding and deserve a ticket. They would almost certainly say NO they were not speeding. Despite the radar gun saying they were driving 99 mph. Opinions, facts. Not the same.
>
>Here is the opening paragraph of your link:
>"This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms."
>
>In my first reading of the report, I FAILED to see that it is an ONLINE survey. That really improves its validity!
>

Click here to read the complete article

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:34:48 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:47:12 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:53:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/1/2022 9:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi <a...@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
>> >>>>>> <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.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> 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.
>> >
>> >"The majority" repeatedly says that it wants more gun control measures.
>> >Universal background checks are the most popular proposal.
>> >
>> >IMO, the main reason better measures have not been implemented is the
>> >bribery - um, make that the huge campaign contributions - by crooks like
>> >LaPierre and his ilk. The NRA member donations that don't go toward
>> >LaPierre's lavish lifestyle go toward helping any nut can buy any gun.
>> >
>> >And countless court decisions have affirmed that "shall not be
>> >infringed" does NOT mean "there can't be any rules."
>> Ah, I see... The U.S. political system is corrupt.
>>
>> What's next a great outcry of Vote Fraud?
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Nooooooooo. That is one of the humorous aspects of the Vote Fraud debacle. The exact same people who are claiming all the votes were tainted, criminal, wrong, crooked, etc. also got elected by those same votes. Somehow, and I am not sure how, all the votes for them were 100000000000000% CORRECT and PURE and TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But all the votes for that other guy were all illegal bad votes and must be thrown out. I can't quite figure out how a crooked vote is bad for one but good for another.

Click here to read the complete article

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/2/2022 6:08 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:10:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> Benefits vs. detriments, John. Benefits vs. detriments. I can list the
>>> benefits of bicycling (again!) if necessary. They've repeatedly been
>>> shown to tremendously outweigh the detriments.
>>
>> But Frank your "benefits" or at least the ones usually stated like
>> exercise, etc. can better, i.e. on a time basis, or economically, be
>> provided by other types of exercise such as running or jogging or even
>> using a stair climber or other exercise device.
>
>No, John. Sorry. You've apparently forgotten many of the benefits of
>bicycling. Maybe you should start a new non-gun thread and we can
>discuss those in detail, to remind you. But I'll mention just a couple
>below.
>
>> I might also mention that the freedom to posses firearms is enshrined
>> in the U.S.'s fundamental law.
>
><sigh> As mentioned countless times, the second amendment does NOT
>prohibit restrictions on gun ownership. It does NOT allow any type of
>gun at all. It does NOT mean nobody can be prohibited from owning one.
>Countless court cases have proven this. How can that not be obvious??
>

Yes Frank there are restriction on who may own and what may be owned
in regards to firearms and the first Federal law I believe is dated
1934... (how old are you Frank) ... and I believe is still in force.
So what are you sputtering abut?

>> I read on "bicycle" sites that Umpteen Gazillions USians ride a
>> bicycle.... at least once a year...which is akin to saying that as you
>> got a little tiddly at the New Years Party you are a confirmed
>> drunkard.
>>
>> The U.S.census tells us that less then 1,000,000, in the U.S. actually
>> use a bicycle to commute to work, while Andrew tells us that 20
>> million own AR type rifles.
>
>You seem to have set up a couple of weird comparisons. You've alluded to
>all owners of bikes, then a small subset of cyclists, then the owners of
>one type of gun.

No Frank, you talk about benefits and I'm simply demonstrating that
there are less then a million people in the U.S. who are actually
benefited by bicycles. Your imagined benefits are simply "Oh! I wanna
do dat!"

You, have posted here, if I'm not mistaken, that you own a bicycle, a
motorcycle and a car so obviously the bicycle is not your "must have
it" means of transportation. So what is it? Simply an adult - Oh, I
want to do that - toy.

In fact the actual hard, cold, I got to have it to get to work,
benefit of bicycles amounts to what? Perhaps 0.3% of the population.
(That is about 1/3 of 1 percent)

>Maybe you should compare avid bike commuters with avid AR shooters.
>
>An avid bike commuter might buy or build something like this:
>https://bikerumor.com/2022-trek-district-commuter-bike-brings-premium-belt-drive-dynamo-hub-model-to-u-s/
>- that is, something with a stable, sturdy frame, perhaps accessorized
>with fenders, rack, kickstand, dyno lighting, sturdy tires, good bags
>and lock. That would make it a good tool to use a lot in place of a car.
>
>An avid AR dude might accessorize too. A sling, a folding stock, red dot
>sights, faster trigger, maybe even a bump stock and more. Those would
>make it a good tool for avidly shooting a couple dozen schoolkids, or
>even more nightclub attendees, or even more concert attendees. You know,
>really using the rapid fire, compact maneuverability, large magazine
>capabilities designed in as combat features.
>
>Bike advantages: Better health AND less pollution AND less danger for
>others by replacing car trips, just for a start.

Drivel. If a bicycle replaces car trips as you claim why do you own a
car and a motorcycle?

What you are really saying is "if the weather is nice and it's not
raining or too cold I sometimes ride my bicycle".

>AR advantages: Better for killing many people quickly. Or pretending to.

But as I pointed out bicycles have killed some 100 times as many as
AR's during the period reported.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/2/2022 6:01 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> I believe that Tommy did identify a case of Voter Fraud in some tiny
> town in Southern New Hampshire in some sort of local election, but the
> fraud had been identified - it was in single digit amounts I seem to
> recall, and corrected and reported in the News, when Tom read abut it.

There were a couple of real cases:
<https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/21/politics/fact-check-republicans-voter-fraud-kirk-hartle/index.html>

From <https://www.thebulwark.com/the-pattern-of-gop-voter-fraud/>
"The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank, maintains a
public database of ballot-fraud cases. A review of the database reveals
an astonishing fact: In every listed indictment and conviction for voter
fraud or other malfeasance in connection with the 2020 presidential
general election, when the culprit’s political affiliation is known he
or she turns out to be a Republican or “unabashed conservative.”"

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 19:02:22 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/2/2022 6:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 11:55 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:09:09 AM UTC-8, Lou
>>> Holtman wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+1, Frank
>>>> Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Universal background checks are the most popular proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the main reason better measures have not been
>>>>> implemented is the
>>>>> bribery - um, make that the huge campaign contributions
>>>>> - by crooks like
>>>>> LaPierre and his ilk. The NRA member donations that
>>>>> don't go toward
>>>>> LaPierre's lavish lifestyle go toward helping any nut
>>>>> can buy any gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> And countless court decisions have affirmed that "shall
>>>>> not be
>>>>> infringed" does NOT mean "there can't be any rules."
>>>> How do you going to solve that 'problem'? Nagging here
>>>> won't work. I don't think you can convince Andrew, Tom or
>>>> John.
>>>>
>>>> Lou, never wanted a gun for any reason, but that is me.
>>>
>>> I prefer the logic of Switzerland. Always be ready and
>>> hope you never have to take it out of the closet save on
>>> those days you have to qualify.
>>
>> That would be fine!
>>
>> What a concept! An actual "well regulated militia!"
>>
>> As opposed to gaggles of anti-government nazi nuts
>> pretending to be soldiers.
>>
>In your dreams. As I often note, we're a large country and
>yes we do have one of everything. That said, there's no
>evidence despite the clutching of pearls and hysterical
>proclamations that any significant number exist. Ever meet
>one yourself? I haven't.

But it all sounds so terrifying. "Oh My Goodness, those terrifying
guns!"

But I find it strange that I, who have been around guns and shooters
--- counting on my fingers --- 70 something years have yet to meet any
of these pseudo soldiers that Frank mentions. In fact given the "gun
experience" that Frank has mentioned here it is difficult to believe
that he has met them.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 20:05:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/2/2022 12:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/10/8/22704266/carjackings-carjacking-crisis-chicago-cook-county-sheriff-tom-dart-toyota-camry-sunday-worst-day
>>
>>
>> Which means of course
>>
>> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/11/29/ccw-holder-fires-gun-attempted-carjacker-roseland/
>>
>>
>> https://abc7chicago.com/south-loop-shooting-crime-robbery/5272059/
>
>I'll note that all three carjacking attempts began with an attempted
>perpetrator using a gun. You want to solve that by having more guns.
>
>How common are these crimes in the dozens of countries with fewer guns,
>and more rational gun control policies?
>
>You keep avoiding my questions about place like Britain. Do cities like
>Manchester have lots of carjackings by guys with ... what, cricket bats?

Well, G.B. - England and Wales - had 5,867 firearms offences in the
year ending June 2021 and 46,937 knife offences.

I read that the population of England and Wales is 56.1 million so the
rate per 100,000 population is 10.458 firearms and 83.666 for knives
and sharp objects.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:52:22 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:26:26 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:25:38 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:02:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 00:51:37 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> ><ritzann...@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 ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ 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)Ã‚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.
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> >
> >> >>> >>> > "Bureau of Justice Statisticsâ€™ 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.(:-)
> >> Further to the above. I wonder whether the good
> >> russell...@yahoo.com actually read the report I listed?
> >
> >Yes I did read it. Thus my comments about it being a survey of gun owners and how the guns saved their lives. And my comments about it being just opinion, not factual. I believe all of the posts you made were in support of how guns in the hands of the public saved lives. In a counter to Frank's opinion that guns with civilians just leads to more dead people. Therefore, I expected your links to be factual counters to Frank's view. Facts showing guns with civilians saved lives. But the link you put at the end was just opinions of gun owners who said their guns saved their lives. Kind of like asking car speeders if they were speeding and deserve a ticket. They would almost certainly say NO they were not speeding. Despite the radar gun saying they were driving 99 mph. Opinions, facts. Not the same.
> >
> >Here is the opening paragraph of your link:
> >"This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U..S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms."
> >
> >In my first reading of the report, I FAILED to see that it is an ONLINE survey. That really improves its validity!
> >
> Well, I would ask, have you ever encountered a survey of a large
> number of people, the number 54,000 is mentioned, which was conducted
> face to face, as it were, and not by phone, on line, or by mail (:-?)
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

Click here to read the complete article

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:39:44 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 19:02:22 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 3/2/2022 6:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2022 11:55 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:09:09 AM UTC-8, Lou
> >>> Holtman wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+1, Frank
> >>>> Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Universal background checks are the most popular proposal.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMO, the main reason better measures have not been
> >>>>> implemented is the
> >>>>> bribery - um, make that the huge campaign contributions
> >>>>> - by crooks like
> >>>>> LaPierre and his ilk. The NRA member donations that
> >>>>> don't go toward
> >>>>> LaPierre's lavish lifestyle go toward helping any nut
> >>>>> can buy any gun.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> And countless court decisions have affirmed that "shall
> >>>>> not be
> >>>>> infringed" does NOT mean "there can't be any rules."
> >>>> How do you going to solve that 'problem'? Nagging here
> >>>> won't work. I don't think you can convince Andrew, Tom or
> >>>> John.
> >>>>
> >>>> Lou, never wanted a gun for any reason, but that is me.
> >>>
> >>> I prefer the logic of Switzerland. Always be ready and
> >>> hope you never have to take it out of the closet save on
> >>> those days you have to qualify.
> >>
> >> That would be fine!
> >>
> >> What a concept! An actual "well regulated militia!"
> >>
> >> As opposed to gaggles of anti-government nazi nuts
> >> pretending to be soldiers.
> >>
> >In your dreams. As I often note, we're a large country and
> >yes we do have one of everything. That said, there's no
> >evidence despite the clutching of pearls and hysterical
> >proclamations that any significant number exist. Ever meet
> >one yourself? I haven't.
> But it all sounds so terrifying. "Oh My Goodness, those terrifying
> guns!"
>
> But I find it strange that I, who have been around guns and shooters
> --- counting on my fingers --- 70 something years have yet to meet any
> of these pseudo soldiers that Frank mentions. In fact given the "gun
> experience" that Frank has mentioned here it is difficult to believe
> that he has met them.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

Me personally has never met any of the mass killers that kill 5-10-15-20-30-40-50 or so people every couple months. But I always see the news stories reporting the bloodshed. So I believe they really happened. Despite some Republicans claiming the mass murders are all made up frauds. Some Republican was yelling at the survivors of the Columbine High School killing that they were lying and it never happened. I also have seen many stories of groups of men wearing camouflage clothes standing in the forest with their AR-15 guns pointed in the sky. I doubt the photos were made up. I'm pretty sure they exist. Didn't the FBI or Oregon national guard round up the rebels in western Oregon a few years ago?

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:06:26 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 20:05:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 3/2/2022 12:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >> https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/10/8/22704266/carjackings-carjacking-crisis-chicago-cook-county-sheriff-tom-dart-toyota-camry-sunday-worst-day
> >>
> >>
> >> Which means of course
> >>
> >> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/11/29/ccw-holder-fires-gun-attempted-carjacker-roseland/
> >>
> >>
> >> https://abc7chicago.com/south-loop-shooting-crime-robbery/5272059/
> >
> >I'll note that all three carjacking attempts began with an attempted
> >perpetrator using a gun. You want to solve that by having more guns.
> >
> >How common are these crimes in the dozens of countries with fewer guns,
> >and more rational gun control policies?
> >
> >You keep avoiding my questions about place like Britain. Do cities like
> >Manchester have lots of carjackings by guys with ... what, cricket bats?
> Well, G.B. - England and Wales - had 5,867 firearms offences in the
> year ending June 2021 and 46,937 knife offences.
>
> I read that the population of England and Wales is 56.1 million so the
> rate per 100,000 population is 10.458 firearms and 83.666 for knives
> and sharp objects.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

John, I am beginning to worry about you. I think you have been exposed to Tommy boy too much. I am pretty sure this whole thread has been about DEAD.. DEATH, KILL, MURDER, HOMICIDE. Deceased. And yet you bring up "offences" for Great Britain. In no one's dictionary on earth is an "offence" equal to a death. We are comparing apples and oranges here.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
"In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400)."
"Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 – 19,384 out of 24,576 – involved a firearm. That marked the highest percentage since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online records. A little over half (53%) of all suicides in 2020 – 24,292 out of 45,979 – involved a gun, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years."

Guessing you got your Britain numbers from this website or something like it.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7654/
"There were a total of 6,622 non-air firearm offences recorded by police in England & Wales in 2019/20. This was a decrease of 3.8% compared with 6,884 offences recorded in 2018/19."
"The most recent data suggests that there were 30 homicides committed by shooting in the year ending 31 March 2020 – 4% of all homicides."

So in 2020, Great Britain had about 6622 firearm offences. You had 5867 for 2021. So my 2020 number and your 2021 number are fairly close. And 30 murders by guns in Britain. 30 murders by guns in Britain in 2020. Out of 6622 gun offences. 0.453% I do not have the gun offences in the USA so cannot calculate the percentage of murders like I did with Britain. But given the 19,384 gun murders in the USA, if we reverse calculated using Britain's 0.453%, we would get to 4,278,695 firearm incidences in the USA. So 1.3% of every man, woman, and child in the USA was in a firearm incident in the USA.

And regarding your nearly 8 to 1 gun to knife incidents numbers. In the USA it seems guns are used 79% of the time for murders. I'd guess in Britain where not everyone in the country has a gun to use, therefore they have to use knives. So Britain gets an 8 to 1 knife to gun incidence. While in the USA due to everyone having two guns each, we get lots more guns to knives for incidents.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:03:39 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:52:22 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:26:26 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:25:38 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:02:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 00:51:37 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> ><ritzann...@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 ÃÆÃ¢â¬Å¡ 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)ÃÂ 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 Statisticsâ 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?
>> >> >>> >>
>> >> >>> >>Its 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 thats 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 dont 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 thats 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.(:-)
>> >> Further to the above. I wonder whether the good
>> >> russell...@yahoo.com actually read the report I listed?
>> >
>> >Yes I did read it. Thus my comments about it being a survey of gun owners and how the guns saved their lives. And my comments about it being just opinion, not factual. I believe all of the posts you made were in support of how guns in the hands of the public saved lives. In a counter to Frank's opinion that guns with civilians just leads to more dead people. Therefore, I expected your links to be factual counters to Frank's view. Facts showing guns with civilians saved lives. But the link you put at the end was just opinions of gun owners who said their guns saved their lives. Kind of like asking car speeders if they were speeding and deserve a ticket. They would almost certainly say NO they were not speeding. Despite the radar gun saying they were driving 99 mph. Opinions, facts. Not the same.
>> >
>> >Here is the opening paragraph of your link:
>> >"This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms."
>> >
>> >In my first reading of the report, I FAILED to see that it is an ONLINE survey. That really improves its validity!
>> >
>> Well, I would ask, have you ever encountered a survey of a large
>> number of people, the number 54,000 is mentioned, which was conducted
>> face to face, as it were, and not by phone, on line, or by mail (:-?)
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I believe the phone and mail surveys are more traditional. And more accurate? I'd guess its easier to cheat, fill out extra surveys online. Whereas with mail and phone calls, most folks have only one phone number or address to receive mail. Yes I know many people have multiple phone numbers on different phones, but all would be registered to the same name so easy to eliminate the extras. As for people having multiple mailing addresses, yes possible, but again all of the mailing addresses would have the same name assigned. And yes face to face surveys used to occur too. I believe in the past people walked door to door. Or stood on street corners and asked passerbys. Online seems a little too shady to me.

Click here to read the complete article

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:11:44 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:39:44 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 19:02:22 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/2/2022 6:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 3/2/2022 11:55 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:09:09 AM UTC-8, Lou
>> >>> Holtman wrote:
>> >>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+1, Frank
>> >>>> Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Universal background checks are the most popular proposal.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> IMO, the main reason better measures have not been
>> >>>>> implemented is the
>> >>>>> bribery - um, make that the huge campaign contributions
>> >>>>> - by crooks like
>> >>>>> LaPierre and his ilk. The NRA member donations that
>> >>>>> don't go toward
>> >>>>> LaPierre's lavish lifestyle go toward helping any nut
>> >>>>> can buy any gun.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> And countless court decisions have affirmed that "shall
>> >>>>> not be
>> >>>>> infringed" does NOT mean "there can't be any rules."
>> >>>> How do you going to solve that 'problem'? Nagging here
>> >>>> won't work. I don't think you can convince Andrew, Tom or
>> >>>> John.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Lou, never wanted a gun for any reason, but that is me.
>> >>>
>> >>> I prefer the logic of Switzerland. Always be ready and
>> >>> hope you never have to take it out of the closet save on
>> >>> those days you have to qualify.
>> >>
>> >> That would be fine!
>> >>
>> >> What a concept! An actual "well regulated militia!"
>> >>
>> >> As opposed to gaggles of anti-government nazi nuts
>> >> pretending to be soldiers.
>> >>
>> >In your dreams. As I often note, we're a large country and
>> >yes we do have one of everything. That said, there's no
>> >evidence despite the clutching of pearls and hysterical
>> >proclamations that any significant number exist. Ever meet
>> >one yourself? I haven't.
>> But it all sounds so terrifying. "Oh My Goodness, those terrifying
>> guns!"
>>
>> But I find it strange that I, who have been around guns and shooters
>> --- counting on my fingers --- 70 something years have yet to meet any
>> of these pseudo soldiers that Frank mentions. In fact given the "gun
>> experience" that Frank has mentioned here it is difficult to believe
>> that he has met them.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Me personally has never met any of the mass killers that kill 5-10-15-20-30-40-50 or so people every couple months. But I always see the news stories reporting the bloodshed. So I believe they really happened. Despite some Republicans claiming the mass murders are all made up frauds. Some Republican was yelling at the survivors of the Columbine High School killing that they were lying and it never happened. I also have seen many stories of groups of men wearing camouflage clothes standing in the forest with their AR-15 guns pointed in the sky. I doubt the photos were made up. I'm pretty sure they exist. Didn't the FBI or Oregon national guard round up the rebels in western Oregon a few years ago?

I knew one. Of course he was a Special Forces Trooper who had
completed 3 tours in Vietnam (:-) He seemed perfectly normal to me
(:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 22:37:39 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:06:26 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 20:05:23 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 3/2/2022 12:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>
>> >> https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/10/8/22704266/carjackings-carjacking-crisis-chicago-cook-county-sheriff-tom-dart-toyota-camry-sunday-worst-day
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Which means of course
>> >>
>> >> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/11/29/ccw-holder-fires-gun-attempted-carjacker-roseland/
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> https://abc7chicago.com/south-loop-shooting-crime-robbery/5272059/
>> >
>> >I'll note that all three carjacking attempts began with an attempted
>> >perpetrator using a gun. You want to solve that by having more guns.
>> >
>> >How common are these crimes in the dozens of countries with fewer guns,
>> >and more rational gun control policies?
>> >
>> >You keep avoiding my questions about place like Britain. Do cities like
>> >Manchester have lots of carjackings by guys with ... what, cricket bats?
>> Well, G.B. - England and Wales - had 5,867 firearms offences in the
>> year ending June 2021 and 46,937 knife offences.
>>
>> I read that the population of England and Wales is 56.1 million so the
>> rate per 100,000 population is 10.458 firearms and 83.666 for knives
>> and sharp objects.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>John, I am beginning to worry about you. I think you have been exposed to Tommy boy too much. I am pretty sure this whole thread has been about DEAD. DEATH, KILL, MURDER, HOMICIDE. Deceased. And yet you bring up "offences" for Great Britain. In no one's dictionary on earth is an "offence" equal to a death. We are comparing apples and oranges here.
>
>https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
>"In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400)."
>"Nearly eight-in-ten (79%) U.S. murders in 2020 19,384 out of 24,576 involved a firearm. That marked the highest percentage since at least 1968, the earliest year for which the CDC has online records. A little over half (53%) of all suicides in 2020 24,292 out of 45,979 involved a gun, a percentage that has generally remained stable in recent years."
>
>Guessing you got your Britain numbers from this website or something like it.
>https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7654/
>"There were a total of 6,622 non-air firearm offences recorded by police in England & Wales in 2019/20. This was a decrease of 3.8% compared with 6,884 offences recorded in 2018/19."
>"The most recent data suggests that there were 30 homicides committed by shooting in the year ending 31 March 2020 4% of all homicides."
>
>So in 2020, Great Britain had about 6622 firearm offences. You had 5867 for 2021. So my 2020 number and your 2021 number are fairly close. And 30 murders by guns in Britain. 30 murders by guns in Britain in 2020. Out of 6622 gun offences. 0.453% I do not have the gun offences in the USA so cannot calculate the percentage of murders like I did with Britain. But given the 19,384 gun murders in the USA, if we reverse calculated using Britain's 0.453%, we would get to 4,278,695 firearm incidences in the USA. So 1.3% of every man, woman, and child in the USA was in a firearm incident in the USA.
>
>And regarding your nearly 8 to 1 gun to knife incidents numbers. In the USA it seems guns are used 79% of the time for murders. I'd guess in Britain where not everyone in the country has a gun to use, therefore they have to use knives. So Britain gets an 8 to 1 knife to gun incidence. While in the USA due to everyone having two guns each, we get lots more guns to knives for incidents.

I believe I used
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/latest
And I was primarily responding to Frank's seeming assertion that
"everything in England is just fine" although granted he didn't use
those words, and pointing out that the British have their problems
too.

The numbers I quoted were, if memory serves, for the year ending
September 2021.

And yes, I am aware that the gun deaths reported for the U.S. usually
include those who commit suicide with a gun.

In fact I think I remember asking whether we should license rope to
prevent people from hanging themselves (:-(

Frank and others seem to see everything through rose colored glasses.
"Just make a law and everything will be just wonderful" while I take
the position that "it just isn't so". In fact in my discussion of
Singapore laws and law enforcement I think I pointed out that while
every State in the U.S. has laws limiting speeding that I read that
speeding is the greatest cause of U.S. auto deaths.

Ah... I could go on but the facts remain that "guns don't shoot
people, people shoot people"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:01:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:34:48 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:47:12 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:53:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 3/1/2022 9:49 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi <a...@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
> >> >>>>>> <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.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> 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.
> >> >
> >> >"The majority" repeatedly says that it wants more gun control measures.
> >> >Universal background checks are the most popular proposal.
> >> >
> >> >IMO, the main reason better measures have not been implemented is the
> >> >bribery - um, make that the huge campaign contributions - by crooks like
> >> >LaPierre and his ilk. The NRA member donations that don't go toward
> >> >LaPierre's lavish lifestyle go toward helping any nut can buy any gun..
> >> >
> >> >And countless court decisions have affirmed that "shall not be
> >> >infringed" does NOT mean "there can't be any rules."
> >> Ah, I see... The U.S. political system is corrupt.
> >>
> >> What's next a great outcry of Vote Fraud?
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> >Nooooooooo. That is one of the humorous aspects of the Vote Fraud debacle. The exact same people who are claiming all the votes were tainted, criminal, wrong, crooked, etc. also got elected by those same votes. Somehow, and I am not sure how, all the votes for them were 100000000000000% CORRECT and PURE and TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But all the votes for that other guy were all illegal bad votes and must be thrown out. I can't quite figure out how a crooked vote is bad for one but good for another.
> I believe that Tommy did identify a case of Voter Fraud in some tiny
> town in Southern New Hampshire in some sort of local election, but the
> fraud had been identified - it was in single digit amounts I seem to
> recall, and corrected and reported in the News, when Tom read abut it.
> --
What he might have been referring to was the case in Windham NH (pop ~15K) where there was a statistically high discrepancy in the hand vs machine count in favor of the republican candidate (who actually won the machine count as well). The state AG did an investigation and traced it to the fact that the ballot had a certain democrat candidates 'bubble" aligned along the fold of the ballot, and the machine read the crease as a vote. Conspiracy theorists pounced on this as evidence that there was wide-spread fraud via machine tampering.
https://www.wmur.com/article/windham-election-auditors-confirm-folding-machine-issue-root-cause-of-discrepancy-between-vote-recount-totals/37012306#

Click here to read the complete article

On 3/3/2022 12:03 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:52:22 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:26:26 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:25:38 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:02:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 00:51:37 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzann...@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 ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡ 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)Ã‚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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bureau of Justice Statisticsâ€™ 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.(:-)
>>>> Further to the above. I wonder whether the good
>>>> russell...@yahoo.com actually read the report I listed?
>>>
>>> Yes I did read it. Thus my comments about it being a survey of gun owners and how the guns saved their lives. And my comments about it being just opinion, not factual. I believe all of the posts you made were in support of how guns in the hands of the public saved lives. In a counter to Frank's opinion that guns with civilians just leads to more dead people. Therefore, I expected your links to be factual counters to Frank's view. Facts showing guns with civilians saved lives. But the link you put at the end was just opinions of gun owners who said their guns saved their lives. Kind of like asking car speeders if they were speeding and deserve a ticket. They would almost certainly say NO they were not speeding. Despite the radar gun saying they were driving 99 mph. Opinions, facts. Not the same.
>>>
>>> Here is the opening paragraph of your link:
>>> "This report summarizes the findings of a national survey of firearms ownership and use conducted between February 17th and March 23rd, 2021 by the professional survey firm Centiment. This survey, which is part of a larger book project, aims to provide the most comprehensive assessment of firearms ownership and use patterns in America to date. This online survey was administered to a representative sample of approximately fifty-four thousand U.S. residents aged 18 and over, and it identified 16,708 gun owners who were, in turn, asked in-depth questions about their ownership and their use of firearms, including defensive uses of firearms."
>>>
>>> In my first reading of the report, I FAILED to see that it is an ONLINE survey. That really improves its validity!
>>>
>> Well, I would ask, have you ever encountered a survey of a large
>> number of people, the number 54,000 is mentioned, which was conducted
>> face to face, as it were, and not by phone, on line, or by mail (:-?)
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
> I believe the phone and mail surveys are more traditional. And more accurate? I'd guess its easier to cheat, fill out extra surveys online. Whereas with mail and phone calls, most folks have only one phone number or address to receive mail. Yes I know many people have multiple phone numbers on different phones, but all would be registered to the same name so easy to eliminate the extras. As for people having multiple mailing addresses, yes possible, but again all of the mailing addresses would have the same name assigned. And yes face to face surveys used to occur too. I believe in the past people walked door to door. Or stood on street corners and asked passerbys. Online seems a little too shady to me.
>

Click here to read the complete article

On 3/3/2022 7:55 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:01:45 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 16:34:48 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:47:12 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:53:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 9:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi <a...@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
>>>>>>>>>> <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 â€œby 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The majority" repeatedly says that it wants more gun control measures.
>>>>> Universal background checks are the most popular proposal.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, the main reason better measures have not been implemented is the
>>>>> bribery - um, make that the huge campaign contributions - by crooks like
>>>>> LaPierre and his ilk. The NRA member donations that don't go toward
>>>>> LaPierre's lavish lifestyle go toward helping any nut can buy any gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> And countless court decisions have affirmed that "shall not be
>>>>> infringed" does NOT mean "there can't be any rules."
>>>> Ah, I see... The U.S. political system is corrupt.
>>>>
>>>> What's next a great outcry of Vote Fraud?
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> Nooooooooo. That is one of the humorous aspects of the Vote Fraud debacle. The exact same people who are claiming all the votes were tainted, criminal, wrong, crooked, etc. also got elected by those same votes. Somehow, and I am not sure how, all the votes for them were 100000000000000% CORRECT and PURE and TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But all the votes for that other guy were all illegal bad votes and must be thrown out. I can't quite figure out how a crooked vote is bad for one but good for another.
>> I believe that Tommy did identify a case of Voter Fraud in some tiny
>> town in Southern New Hampshire in some sort of local election, but the
>> fraud had been identified - it was in single digit amounts I seem to
>> recall, and corrected and reported in the News, when Tom read abut it.
>> --
> What he might have been referring to was the case in Windham NH (pop ~15K) where there was a statistically high discrepancy in the hand vs machine count in favor of the republican candidate (who actually won the machine count as well). The state AG did an investigation and traced it to the fact that the ballot had a certain democrat candidates 'bubble" aligned along the fold of the ballot, and the machine read the crease as a vote. Conspiracy theorists pounced on this as evidence that there was wide-spread fraud via machine tampering.
> https://www.wmur.com/article/windham-election-auditors-confirm-folding-machine-issue-root-cause-of-discrepancy-between-vote-recount-totals/37012306#
>

Click here to read the complete article

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:02:27 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 6:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 3/2/2022 11:55 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 8:09:09 AM UTC-8, Lou
> >> Holtman wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:53:19 PM UTC+1, Frank
> >>> Krygowski wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Universal background checks are the most popular proposal.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMO, the main reason better measures have not been
> >>>> implemented is the
> >>>> bribery - um, make that the huge campaign contributions
> >>>> - by crooks like
> >>>> LaPierre and his ilk. The NRA member donations that
> >>>> don't go toward
> >>>> LaPierre's lavish lifestyle go toward helping any nut
> >>>> can buy any gun.
> >>>>
> >>>> And countless court decisions have affirmed that "shall
> >>>> not be
> >>>> infringed" does NOT mean "there can't be any rules."
> >>> How do you going to solve that 'problem'? Nagging here
> >>> won't work. I don't think you can convince Andrew, Tom or
> >>> John.
> >>>
> >>> Lou, never wanted a gun for any reason, but that is me.
> >>
> >> I prefer the logic of Switzerland. Always be ready and
> >> hope you never have to take it out of the closet save on
> >> those days you have to qualify.
> >
> > That would be fine!
> >
> > What a concept! An actual "well regulated militia!"
> >
> > As opposed to gaggles of anti-government nazi nuts
> > pretending to be soldiers.
> >
> In your dreams. As I often note, we're a large country and
> yes we do have one of everything. That said, there's no
> evidence despite the clutching of pearls and hysterical
> proclamations that any significant number exist. Ever meet
> one yourself? I haven't.

I am afraid that Frank has changed tactics from denying that the Supreme Court has ruled on the definition of what a "well regulated militia" is to anyone that wears fatigues or camo colored clothing is a soldier wannabe. Sort of like Russell's "My government would NEVER lie to me" despite copious proof they have been.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 5:29:20 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 6:51 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:24:57 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/1/2022 9:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:53:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 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.
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> First, thank you for confirming my main point: Laws and policies _do_
> >> make a difference in people's behavior. The corollary is that proper
> >> changes in U.S. law would probably bring improvements in U.S. crime rates.
> >>
> >>> Do you believe that this would be acceptable in the U.S.?
> >>
> >> U.S. laws and attitudes change slowly. Of course you couldn't
> >> immediately impose that entire legal system on the U.S. But that does
> >> not prove that none of its features could ever be implemented. And
> >> obviously, other changes in laws that you did not mention are quite
> >> possible, and would be beneficial.
> >>
> >> "This is just the way it is" is a lazy man's response.
> >
> > But Frank, many, probably most, of the laws in Singapore are echoed in
> > the U.S. or States legal codes. Speeding, for example, which I read is
> > a major cause of highway deaths, is illegal both in Singapore and the
> > U.S.
> >
> > Theft, murder, rape, assault, all against the law in both countries.
> > BUT... Singapore is rated the 2nd safest city in the world while in
> > the U.S..... Well the "Best" seems to be Washington at number 7.
> >
> > The difference is, of course, that Singapore enforces their laws. Or
> > perhaps to be more realistic "Singapore enforces their laws and the
> > penalties are sufficiently severe to actually penalize the wrong
> > doer". Holding a hand phone in your hand while driving merits a $1,000
> > fine and/or 6 months in jail.
> >
> > The results is, of course, that you don't see people with hand phone
> > in hand while driving.
> >
> > The difference? I read that:
> > U.S.
> > The National Safety Council reports that cell phone use while driving
> > leads to 1.6 million crashes each year.
> > Nearly 390,000 injuries occur each year from accidents caused by
> > texting while driving.
> > 1 out of every 4 car accidents in the United States is caused by
> > texting and driving.
> > Texting while driving is 6x more likely to cause an accident than
> > driving drunk.
> >
> > Singapore:
> > Errr I don't find any.
> >
> USA is different:
>
> https://priceza.us/list-cheapest-www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-feces-attack-suspect-curses-at-judge-20220302-ikxahw67yzhdrfjd2ivfnpj6ta-story.html
>
> 44 priors including multiple assaults and outstanding
> warrants. Addressed the judge with, "F**k you, bitch" _AND
> WAS THEN RELEASED WITHOUT BAIL_. At which point he was
> arrested for assaulting a Jewish man (yelling 'f**king Jew',
> spitting on him and taking a swing at him)
>
> Some people assume I exaggerate when I say criminals have
> rights but taxpayers do not. Says the man spat on and swung
> at, “There’s no law in this city,” said Brooklyn victim
> Menachem Minkowitz to the Daily News in an exclusive interview
>
> https://priceza.us/list-cheapest-www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-feces-suspect-anti-semitic-hate-crime-spit-threat-20220302-7rkdauq6qzbm3f3zt5fsorgkw4-story.html
>
> hours after the Tuesday hearing. “I’m glad he’s caught. I
> feel terrible for that woman. I’m very disappointed with how
> the city is handling these situations.”
>
> Now, there's an even tempered soul. My comments would not
> have included 'very disappointed'. YMMV

Quite literally the Democrat Party has become a tool of the CCP. The destruction of America is all they stand for. Consequently the destruction of the Democrat Party and those who support them is the only thing left for the thinking individual to do.

Subject	Author
Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Roger Merriman
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Roger Merriman
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	Rolf Mantel
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	funkma...@hotmail.com
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Ralph Barone
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Rolf Mantel
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Tom Kunich
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	Joy Beeson
Re: Off road hazards	John B.
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	AMuzi
Re: Off road hazards	Frank Krygowski
Re: Off road hazards	russellseaton1@yahoo.com

Today is the first day of the rest of your lossage.

tech / rec.bicycles.tech / Off road hazards