On 3/3/2022 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:53:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> 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  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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yup, what is the benefit???
>>>
>>> For a TV?
>>> For living room furniture?
>>> For a bed?
>>> For a pet dog?
>>> For a bottle of beer
>>> or a glass of whiskey
>>> Or even a wife
>>
>> Wow - from the guy who accused ME of changing the subject!
>>
>> We're not talking about those things, John. And none of those have the
>> disadvantage of abetting mass murder of schoolkids.
>
> Frank... you stated above, "What are the practical
> benefits" in fact you mentioned it at least twice in this series of
> posts.
>
> I'm simply point out that your claim to "benefits" is simply that,
> another argument and that "benefits" in the U.S. apply largely to
> things that are really not required. "Luxuries" one might say.
>
> But Frank, do tell us about the "benefits" of the $30 hand bags.
>

On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 08:50:39 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>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 “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#
>>
>
>https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2022/03/gableman-report-finds-potential-widespread-vote-fraud-in-nursing-homes/

On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:

>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>
>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>> that restriction.
>>>
>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>
>>
>
> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.

John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.

Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/2/2022 8:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> 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!).

Both are in the same category.

> I have given up. Call it what
> you will but it's a regular bog-standard semi, believe it, or not, as
> you wish.

Thank you.

>
> 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.

I'm not a bit bothered by someone's choice to use STI, di2, disc brakes,
12 cog cassettes or any other cutting edge bike technology. I may think
the benefits are minuscule or negative, or that the rider is fooling
himself. But any lack of real benefit applies only to that rider.

As I keep saying, there are real and measurable detriments to America's
gun policies and to the popularity of guns optimized for shooting lots
of rounds at people. Some of those detriments apply to those actually
ahot. Other detriments apply to society as a whole.

That's way, way different than STI.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 19:31:21 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/3/2022 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:53:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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  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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yup, what is the benefit???
>>>>
>>>> For a TV?
>>>> For living room furniture?
>>>> For a bed?
>>>> For a pet dog?
>>>> For a bottle of beer
>>>> or a glass of whiskey
>>>> Or even a wife
>>>
>>> Wow - from the guy who accused ME of changing the subject!
>>>
>>> We're not talking about those things, John. And none of those have the
>>> disadvantage of abetting mass murder of schoolkids.
>>
>> Frank... you stated above, "What are the practical
>> benefits" in fact you mentioned it at least twice in this series of
>> posts.
>>
>> I'm simply point out that your claim to "benefits" is simply that,
>> another argument and that "benefits" in the U.S. apply largely to
>> things that are really not required. "Luxuries" one might say.
>>
>> But Frank, do tell us about the "benefits" of the $30 hand bags.
>>
>
>I'm with you generally but it seems to have been a long
>while since you were buying 'girlfriend food' for an
>American woman. A '$30 handbag' is something one finds at a
>thrift store. A '$30 handbag' is not suitable as a gift.
>
>https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+fendi+bag&t=h_&ia=web
>
>https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+prada+handbag&t=h_&ia=web

On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> 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're off by a factor of over 40.

https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
> 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)

Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm retired, so
no longer commute by bike; but I still use the bike to get groceries,
library books, visit friends and yes, just ride for exercise and fun.

I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must perceive _some_
benefit from that activity.

And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take this very
seriously have determined the benefits of bicycling are real, and
greatly outweigh its risks.

20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
"around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.

7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.

77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
bike share system instead of using a car.

18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.

There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll ignore those
and change the subject.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/3/2022 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:31:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 8:02 PM, 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.
>>
>> As I've noted, I turned down invitations by a couple guys to go to the
>> "machine gun shoot" where I would be able to shoot machine guns, blow up
>> cars and refrigerators, shoot actual cannons, etc. Those two guys live
>> about a mile from me.
>>
>> Another guy who lived a block away (and recently died) had a machine gun
>> mounted on a genuine army Jeep. I chatted with him because he had a
>> motorcycle similar to mine. Conversations were amicable but not fun. He
>> had lots of rage within him.
>>
>> A third guy, passed away a couple years ago, was a well known gun maniac
>> so convinced that (shall we say) Other People were going to come gunning
>> for him that he had a shed armory full of extremely potent guns. Among
>> the people who knew him well and mocked him was a devoted Republican
>> ex-navy friend of mine, who said "It's a real problem for his widow, but
>> the police chief knows all about the situation and is helping her out."
>>
>> Yes, I've met them, Andrew.
>
> A guy had a machine gun mounted on a jeep? Well Frank it really was a
> "machine gun" then he must have been licensed by the Federal
> Government to posses it.

Yes, he was licensed. He talked about the time a guy wanted to buy the
jeep. They dickered back and forth on the price, settled on a high one,
then the potential buyer began talking about the fun he would have with
the machine gun. The owner said "Oh no! I never said I was selling the
gun! You're buying the Jeep!" And he vaguely mentioned the hassle in
getting a legal machine gun.
> And the guy with the shed full of guns and that was a problem for his
> widow? Do you mean that the "shed full" was illegal firearms? Or that
> they were Federal Licensed guns? Or that they were just guns?

The problem was the attitude, John. He felt so paranoid that he thought
he needed many dozens of combat-ready guns. We're lucky that he died
before he reached a level of senility that might have had him blasting
away at attacking squirrels. Our backyard is easily within range.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/3/2022 7:48 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>> that restriction.
>>>>
>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm
>> design was
>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>
> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a
> shotgun or a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>
> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had
> that made it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to
> a better hunting weapon?
>
>

..17 Hornet is an exceptional predator & varmint round.
AFAIK it has had no combat application.

https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/17-hornet-how-i-discovered-perfect-predator-round/

https://www.rifleshootermag.com/editorial/the-new-hornady-17-hornet/84001

Aside from that, everything else is like a box knife. Opens
cartons & stewardesses equally well. Normal people use box
knives for cartons.

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

On 3/3/2022 8:00 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 8:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> 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!).
>
> Both are in the same category.
>
>> I have given up. Call it what you will but it's a regular
>> bog-standard semi, believe it, or not, as you wish.
>
> Thank you.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
> I'm not a bit bothered by someone's choice to use STI, di2,
> disc brakes, 12 cog cassettes or any other cutting edge bike
> technology. I may think the benefits are minuscule or
> negative, or that the rider is fooling himself. But any lack
> of real benefit applies only to that rider.
>
> As I keep saying, there are real and measurable detriments
> to America's gun policies and to the popularity of guns
> optimized for shooting lots of rounds at people. Some of
> those detriments apply to those actually ahot. Other
> detriments apply to society as a whole.
>
> That's way, way different than STI.
>
>

About like pickup trucks, the #1 vehicle sold in the US of A
year after year:

https://ktla.com/news/local-news/child-critically-injured-when-truck-crashes-into-long-beach-apartment-building/

Some large number of your fellow citizens think pickups have
great utility, despite ridiculously high prices. You do not.
Some of your fellow citizens ought not to have one, as they
harm others with their pickup trucks. That's not the fault
of Ford or the truck designers or all the other pickup owners.

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

On 3/3/2022 2:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 12:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 8:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>
>> I agree the U.S. is different. Lots of comparisons show it's
>> worse in many ways than other "developed" countries. And I'm
>> advocating changes in policy and laws that will improve it.
>>
>> As to releasing the accused without bail: I'm told by my
>> Criminal Justice friend that a major reason is lack of
>> sufficient jail space. Building even more jails to imprison
>> an even higher portion of our population (despite our record
>> of ineffective jailing) requires more tax money.
>>
>> Where should that tax money come from?
>>
>
> Too obvious! How about 'sensible regulation and taxes' on human
> excrement? After all if there wasn't any excrement it would not have
> been used in the assault.
>
>
> Seriously, you touch on a real problem, which is, perhaps surprisingly,
> not a land acquisition and capital expenditure problem.
>
> Besides the DA's office, the recent prior mayor made no secret of
> starving Rikers of funding, maintenance and staff:
>
> https://www.thecity.nyc/2022/2/28/22955601/new-psych-units-at-rikers-delayed-despite-renewed-focus-on-mental-health-and-justice
>
>
> Not only. The City Council is OK with those policies.

You don't have to go near Rikers to find examples of the problem of
insufficient incarceration capacity. Our county jail is full. Our city
jail is full. Jails are full in Democratic areas and Republican areas.

Build more capacity? "No new taxes!!!"

And I'll note, even efforts to get law enforcement funds by directly
"taxing" (i.e. fining) law breakers get shut down by the "Law and Order"
party. "Hell no, you can't use cameras to make speeders pay! We're going
to pass laws to stop that!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/3/2022 8:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> 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're off by a factor of over 40.
>
> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>> 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)
>
> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm
> retired, so no longer commute by bike; but I still use the
> bike to get groceries, library books, visit friends and yes,
> just ride for exercise and fun.
>
> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must
> perceive _some_ benefit from that activity.
>
> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take
> this very seriously have determined the benefits of
> bicycling are real, and greatly outweigh its risks.
>
> 20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of
> Health," Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states
> that the years of life gained through cycling exceeds the
> years of life lost through cycling by "around 20 to one."
> Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still
> benefitting from reduced pollution, reduced risk of being
> struck by a car, etc.
>
> 7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits
> of Cycling Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health
> Perspectives, 118(8), Aug. 2010 found a benefit to risk
> ratio of seven to one for cyclists themselves in Britain,
> and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
>
> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and
> benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car
> use", British Medical Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found
> years of life gained outweighed years of life lost by a 77
> to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's bike
> share system instead of using a car.
>
> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to
> active transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131
> computed benefits versus risks in terms of "mortality cost"
> in Euros for the person cycling. Cycling was found to confer
> an average of 1310 € per year due to health gains, versus
> 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
> Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>
> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll
> ignore those and change the subject.
>

Oh, people who feel any given item has benefit? I can do
that too

https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/07/08/former-cnn-anchor-nothing-to-debate-having-a-gun-saved-my-life/

I can't imagine living without my bicycles either.

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

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>> that restriction.
>>>>
>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>
>John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>
>Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?

Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.

But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
and you start talking about hunting.

My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
used by the army of Prussia in 1841.

In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.

I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
developed solely for hunting,

In fact your question demonstrates the fact, yet again, that you know
almost nothing about firearms.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:00:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/2/2022 8:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> 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!).
>
>Both are in the same category.
>
>> I have given up. Call it what
>> you will but it's a regular bog-standard semi, believe it, or not, as
>> you wish.
>
>Thank you.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>I'm not a bit bothered by someone's choice to use STI, di2, disc brakes,
>12 cog cassettes or any other cutting edge bike technology. I may think
>the benefits are minuscule or negative, or that the rider is fooling
>himself. But any lack of real benefit applies only to that rider.
>
>As I keep saying, there are real and measurable detriments to America's
>gun policies and to the popularity of guns optimized for shooting lots
>of rounds at people. Some of those detriments apply to those actually
>ahot. Other detriments apply to society as a whole.
>
Well perhaps you might entertain us with these "measurable detriments"
of these terrifying weapons "optimized for shooting lots of rounds at
people" But please back them up with facts, not wild eyed assertions.

For example:

The FBI reports that during the period 2015 - 2019 in the commission
of a homicide the averaged was 314.6 deaths due to rifle fire and
669.2 due to Personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.)
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
The states of Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine all require no Permit
to Purchase firearms, No Registration of Firearms, No Licensing of
Owners and No Permit to Carry'
and have a firearms homicide rate of
Vermont - 1.3/100,000
N.H. - 0.6
Maine - 1.2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Your turn...
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> 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're off by a factor of over 40.
>
>https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>> 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)
>
>Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm retired, so
>no longer commute by bike; but I still use the bike to get groceries,
>library books, visit friends and yes, just ride for exercise and fun.
>
>I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must perceive _some_
>benefit from that activity.
>
>And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take this very
>seriously have determined the benefits of bicycling are real, and
>greatly outweigh its risks.

Certainly cycling has benefits. After all, anything that get you up
off the couch, even walking to the front door to check for mail has
some "bennies".

As for most of your assertions - you ride to the library, etc., while,
yes, the benefits are better then sitting in a rocking chair but they
aren't as great as they might be. Or to put it another way, they could
be greater for the time spent.

So, what you are really saying is. "Well, it is a nice day. I guess
I'll ride my bike to the library rather then taking the car or the
motorcycle"

>20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
>Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
>gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
>"around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
>themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
>reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.

Interesting that you quote him as he also wrote
"Given that helmets are very effective, cyclists would have to
increase their risk taking fourfold to overcome the protective effect
of helmets. This seems unlikely."

Which you have posted innumerable times that you disagree with.

>7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
>Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
>2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
>themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
>
>77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
>cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
>Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
>life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
>bike share system instead of using a car.
>
>18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
>transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
>risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
>Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
>gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
> Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>
>There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll ignore those
>and change the subject.

All of which say essentially the same thing that bicycling is better
then nothing.

Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles every
morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I walk every
morning and the number of calories expended - I don't know how to
measure the work done any other way - is greater then bicycling for
the same period.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:27:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/3/2022 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:31:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 8:02 PM, 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.
>>>
>>> As I've noted, I turned down invitations by a couple guys to go to the
>>> "machine gun shoot" where I would be able to shoot machine guns, blow up
>>> cars and refrigerators, shoot actual cannons, etc. Those two guys live
>>> about a mile from me.
>>>
>>> Another guy who lived a block away (and recently died) had a machine gun
>>> mounted on a genuine army Jeep. I chatted with him because he had a
>>> motorcycle similar to mine. Conversations were amicable but not fun. He
>>> had lots of rage within him.
>>>
>>> A third guy, passed away a couple years ago, was a well known gun maniac
>>> so convinced that (shall we say) Other People were going to come gunning
>>> for him that he had a shed armory full of extremely potent guns. Among
>>> the people who knew him well and mocked him was a devoted Republican
>>> ex-navy friend of mine, who said "It's a real problem for his widow, but
>>> the police chief knows all about the situation and is helping her out."
>>>
>>> Yes, I've met them, Andrew.
>>
>> A guy had a machine gun mounted on a jeep? Well Frank it really was a
>> "machine gun" then he must have been licensed by the Federal
>> Government to posses it.
>
>Yes, he was licensed. He talked about the time a guy wanted to buy the
>jeep. They dickered back and forth on the price, settled on a high one,
>then the potential buyer began talking about the fun he would have with
>the machine gun. The owner said "Oh no! I never said I was selling the
>gun! You're buying the Jeep!" And he vaguely mentioned the hassle in
>getting a legal machine gun.

Well, if the machine gun was a legal registered weapon why shouldn't
he have one? They are perfectly legal in the conditions you state.

Rather like you owning a car, a motorcycle, and a bicycle. All legal
and why shouldn't you own them?

>> And the guy with the shed full of guns and that was a problem for his
>> widow? Do you mean that the "shed full" was illegal firearms? Or that
>> they were Federal Licensed guns? Or that they were just guns?
>
>The problem was the attitude, John. He felt so paranoid that he thought
>he needed many dozens of combat-ready guns. We're lucky that he died
>before he reached a level of senility that might have had him blasting
>away at attacking squirrels. Our backyard is easily within range.

Well, I guess I can only relate to this paranoia from my own
experiences and but I will add that I've lived and worked in some
pretty wild and wooly areas. The remote jungles of Irian Jaya (the old
name) where all the males carry spears, for example, and wars between
villages are started over a blue plastic "tarpaulin". So based on my
experience the bloke was insane.

So you are basing your arguments on what some crazy old goat thought
or did.

Rather like, all evidence to the contrary, leaping up and down and
shouting about "war weapons".

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:53:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/2/2022 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:16:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@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
> >>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irish,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have far
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Americans are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> saying
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> afraid
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >>>>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >>>>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>>>>>>>>>> population.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >>>>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >>>>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >>>>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >>>>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >>>>>>>>>> policies?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >>>>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
> >>>>>>>>>> fire
> >>>>>>>>>> handgun?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >>>>>>>>> pistols are
> >>>>>>>>> revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40). Those all
> >>>>>>>>> fire at the
> >>>>>>>>> same speed[1].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report
> >>>>>>>>> in the past year
> >>>>>>>>> in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for home
> >>>>>>>>> self-defense.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds
> >>>>>>>> at two rounds
> >>>>>>>> per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters don't do
> >>>>>>>> that. Target
> >>>>>>>> shooters do that only if they're pretending to be in combat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >>>>>>>>> relative or
> >>>>>>>>> yourself?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A)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.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yup, what is the benefit???
> >>>
> >>> For a TV?
> >>> For living room furniture?
> >>> For a bed?
> >>> For a pet dog?
> >>> For a bottle of beer
> >>> or a glass of whiskey
> >>> Or even a wife
> >>
> >> Wow - from the guy who accused ME of changing the subject!
> >>
> >> We're not talking about those things, John. And none of those have the
> >> disadvantage of abetting mass murder of schoolkids.
> >
> > Frank... you stated above, "What are the practical
> > benefits" in fact you mentioned it at least twice in this series of
> > posts.
> >
> > I'm simply point out that your claim to "benefits" is simply that,
> > another argument and that "benefits" in the U.S. apply largely to
> > things that are really not required. "Luxuries" one might say.
> >
> > But Frank, do tell us about the "benefits" of the $30 hand bags.
> >
> I'm with you generally but it seems to have been a long
> while since you were buying 'girlfriend food' for an
> American woman. A '$30 handbag' is something one finds at a
> thrift store. A '$30 handbag' is not suitable as a gift.
>

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:39:06 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 03 Mar 2022 08:50:39 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >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 “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#
> >>
> >
> >https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2022/03/gableman-report-finds-potential-widespread-vote-fraud-in-nursing-homes/
>
> Your last reference talks about a "possible fraud" which seems to be
> that as many as 100% of nursing home residents voted in some cases
> while "By way of comparison, statewide turnout was around 76 percent".
>

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:32:17 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>
> Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles every
> morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I walk every
> morning and the number of calories expended - I don't know how to
> measure the work done any other way - is greater then bicycling for
> the same period.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

Running, yes more calories burned per hour than cycling. But not walking. Walking burns minimal calories. Cycling at an easy pace also burns minimal calories. Like walking. Cycling at a fast, hard pace, burns lots of calories. Comparable to running.

On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:46:51 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 10:32:17 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles every
>> morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I walk every
>> morning and the number of calories expended - I don't know how to
>> measure the work done any other way - is greater then bicycling for
>> the same period.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Running, yes more calories burned per hour than cycling. But not walking. Walking burns minimal calories. Cycling at an easy pace also burns minimal calories. Like walking. Cycling at a fast, hard pace, burns lots of calories. Comparable to running.

Depending on how fast you walk (:-) Ever see what is called "Race
Walking"?

But more seriously normal marching rate, 150 lb trooper, 120
paces/minute, 30 inch pace, is about 3.4 mph and costs about 245
calories/hour. Bicycling at a modest rate costs about 272
calories/hour. So about 10% more calories.

Same body weight jogging for 1 hour uses 476 and "running jogging in
place costs 1020 calories.
http://www.calories-calculator.net/Calories_Burned_Calculator.html

But, perhaps the greatest benefit that running, jogging or walking
has, least for those getting on a bit, that they are all weight
bearing exercises while bicycling, unless you are standing on the
pedals is not.

Weakening of the bones in the human body, called Osteoporosis in the
trade, is largely a factor of growing old and weight bearing
exercises, while not preventing it do help in reducing the rate of
weakening.

Bicycling is, primarily an Aerobic Exercise, i.e. good for the
heart-lung functions while walking. jogging and running provide both
Aerobic Exercise and a weight bearing exercise.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 3/3/2022 8:27 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 7:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:31:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/2/2022 8:02 PM, 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.
>>>
>>> As I've noted, I turned down invitations by a couple guys
>>> to go to the
>>> "machine gun shoot" where I would be able to shoot
>>> machine guns, blow up
>>> cars and refrigerators, shoot actual cannons, etc. Those
>>> two guys live
>>> about a mile from me.
>>>
>>> Another guy who lived a block away (and recently died)
>>> had a machine gun
>>> mounted on a genuine army Jeep. I chatted with him
>>> because he had a
>>> motorcycle similar to mine. Conversations were amicable
>>> but not fun. He
>>> had lots of rage within him.
>>>
>>> A third guy, passed away a couple years ago, was a well
>>> known gun maniac
>>> so convinced that (shall we say) Other People were going
>>> to come gunning
>>> for him that he had a shed armory full of extremely
>>> potent guns. Among
>>> the people who knew him well and mocked him was a devoted
>>> Republican
>>> ex-navy friend of mine, who said "It's a real problem for
>>> his widow, but
>>> the police chief knows all about the situation and is
>>> helping her out."
>>>
>>> Yes, I've met them, Andrew.
>>
>> A guy had a machine gun mounted on a jeep? Well Frank it
>> really was a
>> "machine gun" then he must have been licensed by the Federal
>> Government to posses it.
>
> Yes, he was licensed. He talked about the time a guy wanted
> to buy the jeep. They dickered back and forth on the price,
> settled on a high one, then the potential buyer began
> talking about the fun he would have with the machine gun.
> The owner said "Oh no! I never said I was selling the gun!
> You're buying the Jeep!" And he vaguely mentioned the hassle
> in getting a legal machine gun.
>> And the guy with the shed full of guns and that was a
>> problem for his
>> widow? Do you mean that the "shed full" was illegal
>> firearms? Or that
>> they were Federal Licensed guns? Or that they were just guns?
>
> The problem was the attitude, John. He felt so paranoid that
> he thought he needed many dozens of combat-ready guns. We're
> lucky that he died before he reached a level of senility
> that might have had him blasting away at attacking
> squirrels. Our backyard is easily within range.
>

> "Our backyard is easily within range."

Discharge within city limits is a crime.

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

On 3/3/2022 11:30 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 7:31:29 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/3/2022 6:36 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 13:53:32 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/2/2022 8:45 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:16:55 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@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
>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>>>>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>>>>>>>>>> population.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>>>>>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>>>>>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>>>>>>>>>>> policies?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>>>>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>>>>>>>>>>>> fire
>>>>>>>>>>>> handgun?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>>>>>>>>>> pistols are
>>>>>>>>>>> revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40). Those all
>>>>>>>>>>> fire at the
>>>>>>>>>>> same speed[1].
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report
>>>>>>>>>>> in the past year
>>>>>>>>>>> in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for home
>>>>>>>>>>> self-defense.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds
>>>>>>>>>> at two rounds
>>>>>>>>>> per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters don't do
>>>>>>>>>> that. Target
>>>>>>>>>> shooters do that only if they're pretending to be in combat.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>>>>>>>>>> relative or
>>>>>>>>>>> yourself?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A)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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, what is the benefit???
>>>>>
>>>>> For a TV?
>>>>> For living room furniture?
>>>>> For a bed?
>>>>> For a pet dog?
>>>>> For a bottle of beer
>>>>> or a glass of whiskey
>>>>> Or even a wife
>>>>
>>>> Wow - from the guy who accused ME of changing the subject!
>>>>
>>>> We're not talking about those things, John. And none of those have the
>>>> disadvantage of abetting mass murder of schoolkids.
>>>
>>> Frank... you stated above, "What are the practical
>>> benefits" in fact you mentioned it at least twice in this series of
>>> posts.
>>>
>>> I'm simply point out that your claim to "benefits" is simply that,
>>> another argument and that "benefits" in the U.S. apply largely to
>>> things that are really not required. "Luxuries" one might say.
>>>
>>> But Frank, do tell us about the "benefits" of the $30 hand bags.
>>>
>> I'm with you generally but it seems to have been a long
>> while since you were buying 'girlfriend food' for an
>> American woman. A '$30 handbag' is something one finds at a
>> thrift store. A '$30 handbag' is not suitable as a gift.
>>
>
> I'm going to go way out on a limb and say you are WRONG Andy. Wrong about $30 handbags at thrift stores. I have been in thrift stores. Salvation Army store. Never looked at the handbag section of course. But $30 for a handbag at a thrift store seems outrageously expensive. Crazy expensive. Now belts I do look at in thrift stores. Men's belts. I buy them for a $1 in the thrift store. Great, great belts. Almost like brand new. I have 5 or 6 in reserve now. Belts that probably cost $20 or $30 new. But only $1 at the thrift store. Yeah!!! I am going to bet women's handbags are just like men's belts at the thrift store. They get lots of them and sell them for a buck or two to get rid of them fast. No $30 handbags at the thrift store.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+fendi+bag&t=h_&ia=web
>>
>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=genuine+new+prada+handbag&t=h_&ia=web

On 3/3/2022 9:37 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> About like pickup trucks, the #1 vehicle sold in the US of A year after
> year:
>
> https://ktla.com/news/local-news/child-critically-injured-when-truck-crashes-into-long-beach-apartment-building/
>
>
> Some large number of your fellow citizens think pickups have great
> utility, despite ridiculously high prices. You do not. Some of your
> fellow citizens ought not to have one, as they harm others with their
> pickup trucks. That's not the fault of Ford or the truck designers or
> all the other pickup owners.

Pickup trucks are purposely styled to look aggressive. By doing that,
designers promote an aggressive mindset. That IS the fault of Ford and
truck designers.

"“Trucks could look less tough, but you don’t want to be the one to make
your truck look soft,” says Tyson Jominy, vice president for data and
analytics at J.D. Power. He estimates that an automaker might make four
to five times more money on a pickup than a sedan, partly because
manufacturing a truck is simpler and because buyers will pay more for a
pickup. “You can charge a lot for the capability, for the image.”

"Automakers are also selling a lifestyle, says Angie Schmitt, founder
and principal at 3MPH Planning and Consulting, a firm focused on
pedestrian safety. She points to ads with trucks at construction sites,
hauling massive trailers, and racing over sand dunes. “They’re not
hiding the fact that they’re marketing these trucks as being really
macho and a display of masculinity or prowess,” she says. “That’s a big
part of the marketing, and I think that it works.”

More at
https://www.consumerreports.org/car-safety/the-hidden-dangers-of-big-trucks/

or
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/suvs-trucks-killing-pedestrians-cyclists/621102/

or
https://driving.ca/auto-news/driver-info/blind-spots-on-pickup-trucks-are-killing-pedestrians-says-consumer-reports

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/3/2022 9:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/3/2022 8:16 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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're off by a factor of over 40.
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>>> 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)
>>
>> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm
>> retired, so no longer commute by bike; but I still use the
>> bike to get groceries, library books, visit friends and yes,
>> just ride for exercise and fun.
>>
>> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must
>> perceive _some_ benefit from that activity.
>>
>> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take
>> this very seriously have determined the benefits of
>> bicycling are real, and greatly outweigh its risks.
>>
>> 20:1 benefit:  Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of
>> Health," Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states
>> that the years of life gained through cycling exceeds the
>> years of life lost through cycling by "around 20 to one."
>> Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
>> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still
>> benefitting from reduced pollution, reduced risk of being
>> struck by a car, etc.
>>
>> 7:1 benefit:  Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits
>> of Cycling Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health
>> Perspectives, 118(8), Aug. 2010 found a benefit to risk
>> ratio of seven to one for cyclists themselves in Britain,
>> and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
>>
>> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and
>> benefits of cycling in urban environments compared with car
>> use", British Medical Journal 2011: 343: d4512    found
>> years of life gained outweighed years of life lost by a 77
>> to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's bike
>> share system instead of using a car.
>>
>> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to
>> active transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131
>> computed benefits versus risks in terms of "mortality cost"
>> in Euros for the person cycling. Cycling was found to confer
>> an average of 1310 € per year due to health gains, versus
>> 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
>>   Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>>
>> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll
>> ignore those and change the subject.
>>
>
> Oh, people who feel any given item has benefit? I can do that too
>
> https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2015/07/08/former-cnn-anchor-nothing-to-debate-having-a-gun-saved-my-life/

Wow. Let's back up and look at the quality of evidence here, OK?

I've cited four scientific studies specifically constructed to answer
the question about whether bicycling's benefits exceed its risks.
Although each used different methods and metrics, they all concluded the
benefits of bicycling greatly outweighed its risks. And it goes without
saying, but any detriments of bicycling are never externalized. That is,
as opposed to guns, bicycling almost never harms others.

To counter that, you linked one anecdote in which a couple was attacked
WITH THE WEAPON YOU'RE DEFENDING and ask us to accept the belief of the
woman that her gun saved her life. IOW, you're discounting the fact that
the thug could have simply left with the couple's money.

Have you not considered that if the attacker had no access to his gun,
the entire incident would not have taken place? And that by promoting
the free distribution of AR rifles and other guns, you're all but
guaranteeing more such attacks?

To put this in more scientific terms: Is that really all you've got for
a disciplined study of overall benefits and detriments of American gun
policy?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/3/2022 11:32 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 21:16:42 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/2/2022 9:27 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 19:52:58 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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're off by a factor of over 40.
>>
>> https://www.statista.com/topics/1686/cycling/
>>> 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)
>>
>> Don't pretend that bicycles benefit ONLY bike commuters. I'm retired, so
>> no longer commute by bike; but I still use the bike to get groceries,
>> library books, visit friends and yes, just ride for exercise and fun.
>>
>> I believe you do at least the latter. You therefore must perceive _some_
>> benefit from that activity.
>>
>> And as I've alluded to many times, many researchers who take this very
>> seriously have determined the benefits of bicycling are real, and
>> greatly outweigh its risks.
>
> Certainly cycling has benefits. After all, anything that get you up
> off the couch, even walking to the front door to check for mail has
> some "bennies".
>
> As for most of your assertions - you ride to the library, etc., while,
> yes, the benefits are better then sitting in a rocking chair but they
> aren't as great as they might be. Or to put it another way, they could
> be greater for the time spent.
>
> So, what you are really saying is. "Well, it is a nice day. I guess
> I'll ride my bike to the library rather then taking the car or the
> motorcycle"
>
>> 20:1 benefit: Mayer Hillman, "Cycling and the Promotion of Health,"
>> Policy Studies, Summer 1993, Vol. 14 (2) states that the years of life
>> gained through cycling exceeds the years of life lost through cycling by
>> "around 20 to one." Hillman's computation was for not only the cyclists
>> themselves, but also for those not cycling, but still benefitting from
>> reduced pollution, reduced risk of being struck by a car, etc.
>
> Interesting that you quote him as he also wrote
> "Given that helmets are very effective, cyclists would have to
> increase their risk taking fourfold to overcome the protective effect
> of helmets. This seems unlikely."
>
> Which you have posted innumerable times that you disagree with.
>
>> 7:1 benefit: Jeroen J. de Hartog, "Do the Health Benefits of Cycling
>> Outweigh the Risks?", Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(8), Aug.
>> 2010 found a benefit to risk ratio of seven to one for cyclists
>> themselves in Britain, and nine to one for cyclists in Holland.
>>
>> 77:1 benefit: David Rojas-Rueda, "The health risks and benefits of
>> cycling in urban environments compared with car use", British Medical
>> Journal 2011: 343: d4512 found years of life gained outweighed years of
>> life lost by a 77 to one margin, for those who chose to use Barcelona's
>> bike share system instead of using a car.
>>
>> 18:1 benefit: Ari Rabl, "Benefits of shift from car to active
>> transport", Transport Policy 19 (2012) 121-131 computed benefits versus
>> risks in terms of "mortality cost" in Euros for the person cycling.
>> Cycling was found to confer an average of 1310 € per year due to health
>> gains, versus 72 € detriments due to pollution exposure and crash risk.
>> Thus benefits exceeded risks by 18 to one.
>>
>> There are more, but I won't bother citing. I know you'll ignore those
>> and change the subject.
>
> All of which say essentially the same thing that bicycling is better
> then nothing.
>
> Back in my younger days I used to get up and run 5 miles every
> morning, except Sunday, before breakfast and even now I walk every
> morning and the number of calories expended - I don't know how to
> measure the work done any other way - is greater then bicycling for
> the same period.

We may bicycle to get groceries later today. We frequently do that. It's
a 6.2 mile round trip.

Would you walk or run six miles to carry home 20-something pounds of
groceries? Of course not. You'd drive.

That illustrates that for many trips, bicycling can replace driving in
ways that walking or running cannot. In fact, I doubt you've ever run to
and from a store to buy anything weighing even a pound. Running is
exercise, but it's as unproductive for practical purposes as spinning on
an exercise bike.

Bicycling can replace car use for certain trips, giving health and
economic benefits to the rider, plus safety and health benefits to
others who are less subject to the physical and environmental dangers
imposed by cars. And it builds healthy exercise into daily life as a
normal event, not an "I gotta..." add on discipline.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/3/2022 9:47 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 20:48:51 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/3/2022 8:29 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>>> On 3/3/2022 12:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Assault rifles" as in commonly used language - rifles with
>>>>> multiple design features originally and purposely included
>>>>> for effectiveness in assault or other combat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, some people prefer to restrict the definition to those
>>>>> guns having built in full auto capability. Some do not use
>>>>> that restriction.
>>>>>
>>>>> If accessories are readily available to allow emptying a 30
>>>>> round magazine in much less than ten seconds, I think the
>>>>> restricted definition is worthless. That capability is
>>>>> intended for combat or assault.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The thing is that nearly all "improvements" in firearm design was
>>> intended to make them a more effective combat weapon.
>>
>> John, IIRC you've said you used to hunt. I assume you used a shotgun or
>> a rifle, as is typical with most hunters.
>>
>> Care to tell us what models, and what design features it had that made
>> it a "more effective combat weapon," as opposed to a better hunting weapon?
>
> Well, tell me what a "better hunting weapon" is.
>
> But your argue is ridiculous at best. I say that nearly all
> improvements were intended to make then more effective combat weapons"
> and you start talking about hunting.
>
> My first rifle was a ,22 single shot bolt action Winchester rifle. the
> first single shot bolt action rifle was developed by von Dreyse and
> used by the army of Prussia in 1841.
>
> In later years I built "varmint rifles" based on the "short mauser"
> actions - all surplus from some army or another, a bolt action, action
> with a magazine, developed by Peter Paul and Wilhelm Mauser and
> accepted by the Prussian government on 2 December 1871.
>
> I could go on but why bother as just about any firearm you can mention
> is, or has been, used by the military or law enforcement and with the
> exception of the early "Elephant Rifles" I can think of no "guns"
> developed solely for hunting,

Tell us more about your hunting rifles. Did they have a shorter barrel
length, like an AR, or longer barrel length like most other rifles?
Barrels as short as 15 inches are great for street warfare. Most hunters
want something well over 20 inches.

Did your hunting rifles have pistol grips? They're very handy if you've
got to jump and dodge around to avoid real or pretend enemy fire. Did
the squirrels and woodchucks fire back at you, making that grip necessary?

How big was the magazine, and how fast was the action on your hunting
rifle? Could you empty a 30 round magazine into a rabbit in less than
ten seconds? And hey, could you fit a drum magazine in case 30 rounds
didn't take down that rabbit?

Did you use a "red dot" sight? You can get on target SO much faster,
which is handy if the deer you're after is also shooting back at you.

I could go on, but I'd appreciate answers to those questions instead of
evasions.

--
- Frank Krygowski