On 3/1/2022 9:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:53:08 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> OK, John, let's return to some "facts" you've repeatedly reported.
>>
>> On many occasions, you've discussed with apparent approval the extremely
>> strict laws of Singapore, everything from spitting on sidewalks to
>> dealing drugs. Each time you've done that, you ended with statements
>> like "And in Singapore, people don't do those things."
>>
>> Your implication was NOT that Singaporeans are genetically prone to be
>> well behaved people. Your implication was that properly enforced laws DO
>> cause people to change their behavior.
>>
>> But you work just as hard to imply that the differences between American
>> crime data and that of Canada, Britain, Ireland etc. are _not_ the legal
>> policies and other government and social policies. And when I ask for
>> details, YOU change the subject.
>>
>> Care to tell me why what works for Singapore, Canada, France, Germany
>> and more would not work in the U.S.? Is it American genetics? Really?
>
> Nice try. I state that Canadians are much more law abiding and you
> travel all over the world to prove your point.
>
> But to answer your question, yes, Singapore has extremely strict laws,
> but what is more to the point is that they enforce these laws.
>
> If you, for example, are caught with 30 grams of morphine, or more,
> the penalty is death. And you can make an appeal to the President of
> the country and he can pardon you but the numbers pardoned since
> Singapore became a nation probably can be counted on one hand.
>
> For holding a hand phone in your hand for driving it is a $1000 fine
> and/or 6 months in jail. for a second offense it is $2,000 and/or 12
> months in jail.
>
> And no jury trials in Singapore, no lawyer jabbering away trying to
> influence a jury. You go before the Judge, the police present their
> evidence, you present your's if any, and the Judge rules.
>
> Then the sentence is carried out. No long drawn out appeals. Straight
> into the hoosegow.
>
> Another point is that Singapore has mandatory national service for 2
> years after high school. Which can be, the Military, the Police or
> what they call Civil Defense which could be, I believe, the Fire
> Department or Ambulance Service.
>
> As an aside Singapore has something like 170 police officers per
> 100,000 population and the U.S, has 239, yet walking around in
> Singapore you frequently see police officers while I can't remember
> ever seeing a policeman on the streets in the U.S.

First, thank you for confirming my main point: Laws and policies _do_
make a difference in people's behavior. The corollary is that proper
changes in U.S. law would probably bring improvements in U.S. crime rates.

> Do you believe that this would be acceptable in the U.S.?

U.S. laws and attitudes change slowly. Of course you couldn't
immediately impose that entire legal system on the U.S. But that does
not prove that none of its features could ever be implemented. And
obviously, other changes in laws that you did not mention are quite
possible, and would be beneficial.

"This is just the way it is" is a lazy man's response.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 3/1/2022 9:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> Another point is that in Singapore, and even here to some extent, the
> excuse "Oh! I dn't see 'im" doesn't work as the Judge will tell you
> that as you were in command of the car it is your duty to see. In fact
> in Singapore it might result in additional charge of Irresponsible
> Driving being made (:-)

Good. I approve.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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.

On 3/2/2022 9:53 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/1/2022 9:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi
>> <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/1/2022 7:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.�
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to
>>>>>>>>>> accept. If you can't
>>>>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the
>>>>>>>>> U.S. is worse than
>>>>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law
>>>>>>>> abiding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>>>>> overcome the
>>>>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>>>>> makes no
>>>>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>>>>> turn and post
>>>>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>>>> inherently?
>>>>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>>>>> have a point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>>>> French, Swedes
>>>>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>>>>> look up their
>>>>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going
>>>>>>> to assume that
>>>>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>>>>> their national
>>>>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>> difference in how
>>>>>>> people behave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>> don't change the
>>>>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>>>>> we will
>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make
>>>>>> a big
>>>>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>>>>> imagination? Or that
>>>>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>>>>> inhabitants of
>>>>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>>>>> why they act
>>>>>> as they do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>>>>> of a vivid
>>>>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>>>>> rates the
>>>>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I wonder if we have a natural experiment to use in
>>>>> comparison? Oh, maybe we do. The national 55mph speed
>>>>> limit was imposed on the States. Even States unwilling
>>>>> were coerced/bribed with the Highway Trust Fund into
>>>>> compliance, more or less[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how's speed limit compliance going?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/s88fcy/flow_of_traffic_on_the_beltline/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That conversation is ubiquitous- any expressway, any
>>>>> Interstate. So would you maintain that a change of law
>>>>> effected a change in countenance?
>>>>
>>>> Speed limits absolutely make a difference. No, they are not
>>>> perfect - and Andrew, you really need to drop the idea that
>>>> imperfect results are the same as zero results.
>>>>
>>>> Some cases in point: According to Wikipedia, the German
>>>> Autobahn has reported average speeds of 88 mph in its
>>>> unrestricted zones. It has 72 mph in its 75 mph (120 kph)
>>>> zones.
>>>>
>>>> In the U.S., Wyoming is noted for zero, or very lax speed
>>>> enforcement plus high speed limits (up to 80 mph). South
>>>> Dakota also allows speeds up to 80, and New Mexico
>>>> allows up
>>>> to 75mph. Which states have the fastest drivers? "#1
>>>> Wyoming: 21.09% of drivers exceed 70 mph. #2 South
>>>> Dakota:
>>>> 17.07% #3 New Mexico: 16.50% ."
>>>>
>>>> And in my own nearby city: For a couple years, the twisty
>>>> inner city freeway long had a bad reputation for both
>>>> speeding and serious crashes. Then came enforcement - sort
>>>> of. The city began using speed cameras, and I say "sort of"
>>>> because no ticket could be issued until the limit was
>>>> exceeded by 10 mph. The result? Speeding became a far
>>>> smaller problem, and serious crashes dropped even more.
>>>>
>>>> Then some legislators from the "Law and Order" party
>>>> stepped
>>>> in and wrote laws to discourage the use of speed cameras.
>>>> Because The Constitution has a clause stating that anyone
>>>> can drive any speed they want to, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> The major point? There will always be speeders and other
>>>> assholes. But even though they are not perfect, laws DO
>>>> affect people's behaviors, especially when properly
>>>> enforced.
>>>>
>>>> (BTW, Germany does use speed cameras.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, here we are, just as you wish.
>>>
>>> 'Shall not be infringed' has come to mean only calibers
>>> smaller than .50, no full auto, permanent record of purchase
>>> at the Federally licensed dealer, a Federal excise tax on
>>> firearms and ammunition. The various States add their own
>>> taxes, licensing[1] and restrictions including severe
>>> restrictions on carry[2]. Municipalities add even more
>>> infringements.
>>>
>>> I will assume your use of the word 'asshole' in place of
>>> 'driver' has some meaning in this conversation as well.
>>>
>>> [1] I can't take my ex to a pistol range near her home in IL
>>> without an Illinois FOID card. She doesn't own a firearm,
>>> but can't go into a range without the State card.
>>>
>>> [2] This is currently in litigation:
>>> https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/supreme-court-arguments-new-york-gun-case-signal-uphill-battle-defend-overly
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think that the best argument to Frank's assertions is
>> that: "the
>> right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
>> infringed"
>> is part of the fundamental law of the U.S.
>> But... it can be changed or deleted and I believe that the
>> basic
>> Constitution has been amended some 27 times.
>>
>> So, logically, if possession/ownership of firearms is
>> really such a
>> valid point of argument why hasn't the constitution been
>> amended to
>> prohibit it?
>>
>> And before Frank starts waving his arms in the air and
>> shouting, "It
>> should Be! It Should Be!" one might stop and give some
>> consideration
>> to the fact that the U.S. is a democracy and the fundamental
>> philosophy behind a democracy is that the individual
>> doesn't count.
>> The majority rules.
>
> "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."
>

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.

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

On 3/2/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 12:50 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0700, John B.
>> <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Secretary, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> residents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public
>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to arm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves for Â
>>>>>>>>>>>>> protection because their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that
>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear?
>>>>>>>>>>> Knives,
>>>>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes
>>>>>>>>>>> firearms.
>>>>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious
>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>>>>>>>> population.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through
>>>>>>>>>>> her
>>>>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited
>>>>>>>>>>> utility.
>>>>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes
>>>>>>>>>>> away.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they
>>>>>>>>>> not have
>>>>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans
>>>>>>>>>> do? If
>>>>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> policies?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or
>>>>>>>>>> rapid
>>>>>>>>>> fire
>>>>>>>>>> handgun?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home
>>>>>>>>> defense
>>>>>>>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380
>>>>>>>>> /.40).
>>>>>>>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news
>>>>>>>>> report in
>>>>>>>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was
>>>>>>>>> used for
>>>>>>>>> home self-defense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine
>>>>>>>> rounds at
>>>>>>>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire."
>>>>>>>> Hunters
>>>>>>>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>>>>>>>> pretending to be in combat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for
>>>>>>>>> your
>>>>>>>>> relative or yourself?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A) This common crime?
>>>>>>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> B) or more like this?
>>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!"
>>>>>>>> statement!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so
>>>>>>>> scary, at
>>>>>>>> least to me and mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S.
>>>>>>>> household
>>>>>>>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>>>>>>>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> {1} in the real world.
>>>>>>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying
>>>>>>>>> devices
>>>>>>>>> which always hit the intended target such as the
>>>>>>>>> bad guy's
>>>>>>>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>>>>>>>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head
>>>>>>>>> with magic
>>>>>>>>> sound effects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun
>>>>>>>> culture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
>>>>>>> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
>>>>>>> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right
>>>>>>> moment[1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
>>>>>>> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
>>>>>>> different situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
>>>>>> Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the
>>>>>> most
>>>>>> recent edition of the study are the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
>>>>>> justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
>>>>>> firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
>>>>>> homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for
>>>>>> every
>>>>>> justifiable homicide.
>>>>>> Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
>>>>>> self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
>>>>>> percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>>>>>> and 2016.
>>>>>> Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
>>>>>> self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
>>>>>> percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>>>>>> and 2016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
>>>>>> most striking is that in a nation of more than 300
>>>>>> million
>>>>>> guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting?
>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of
>>>>>> firearms,
>>>>>> one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I
>>>>>> know many
>>>>>> hunters and would have been one if my life were just a
>>>>>> tiny
>>>>>> bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> invitations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot
>>>>> at,
>>>>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
>>>>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
>>>>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at."
>>>> Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
>>>> home invasions are far, far from common - although I can
>>>> talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
>>>>
>>>> One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from
>>>> me. I don't know if they've figured out the
>>>> motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the
>>>> front door in the dead of night and started shooting
>>>> at several people (not family members) gathered in the
>>>> living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
>>>> not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody
>>>> shot back, because how would you know
>>>> to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
>>>>
>>>> The other event I knew about involved the vice president
>>>> of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
>>>> an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels
>>>> aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
>>>> door at night, and the VP came to the door in his
>>>> pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
>>>> gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own
>>>> gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
>>>> him as he ran, killing him.
>>>>
>>>> Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV
>>>> action shootings.
>>>>
>>>>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than
>>>> Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
>>>> I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you
>>>> lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
>>>>
>>>> “It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of
>>>> the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said,
>>>> despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is
>>>> exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country
>>>> than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of
>>>> gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were
>>>> suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of
>>>> people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun
>>>> to protect themselves — and the average person had
>>>> “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a
>>>> gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
>>>>
>>>> "Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what
>>>> researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A
>>>> study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000
>>>> to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large
>>>> majority of firearms researchers, however, “think
>>>> that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr.
>>>> Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown
>>>> to report the timing and frequencies of events
>>>> inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
>>>>
>>>> "Additionally, people involved in gun violence often
>>>> claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case
>>>> don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias
>>>> that can make data unreliable. And when trying to
>>>> measure rare events, any margin of survey error can
>>>> create huge variables in the results."
>>>>
>>>> Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers,
>>>> however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
>>>>
>>>> And even if it were true, how many developed countries
>>>> does that apply to? Why?
>>>>
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>> https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
>>>
>>> https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
>>>
>>> http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
>>>
>>> https://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html
>>>
>>> https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm/
>>>
>>> (:-)
>> Sorry, I missed one. See
>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388714
>
> I think I can find as many articles "proving" the existence
> of winged garden fairies. Yes, gun nuts come up with
> citations of other gun nuts. Actual crime researchers come
> up with completely different numbers.
>
> But the claims cited above seem to omit the questions I keep
> asking - like, how is it that other "developed" countries
> with far, far less private gun ownership don't have far
> greater violent crime rates? For example, why aren't those
> poor defenseless Brits totally overwhelmed by people
> breaking into their homes in the dead of night?
>
>

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 9:43:32 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 3/2/2022 12:50 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0700, John B.
> >> <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> are ...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irish,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have far
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a lot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> by their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> make a big
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad."
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> different. And
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Secretary, he
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> residents of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> public
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to arm
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves for Â
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> protection because their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Americans
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
> >>>>>>>>>>>> saying
> >>>>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents
> >>>>>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>>>>> afraid
> >>>>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>>>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear?
> >>>>>>>>>>> Knives,
> >>>>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes
> >>>>>>>>>>> firearms.
> >>>>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious
> >>>>>>>>>>> people
> >>>>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>>>>>>>>>> population.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through
> >>>>>>>>>>> her
> >>>>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited
> >>>>>>>>>>> utility.
> >>>>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes
> >>>>>>>>>>> away.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they
> >>>>>>>>>> not have
> >>>>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans
> >>>>>>>>>> do? If
> >>>>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> policies?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >>>>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or
> >>>>>>>>>> rapid
> >>>>>>>>>> fire
> >>>>>>>>>> handgun?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home
> >>>>>>>>> defense
> >>>>>>>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380
> >>>>>>>>> /.40).
> >>>>>>>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news
> >>>>>>>>> report in
> >>>>>>>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was
> >>>>>>>>> used for
> >>>>>>>>> home self-defense.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine
> >>>>>>>> rounds at
> >>>>>>>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire."
> >>>>>>>> Hunters
> >>>>>>>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
> >>>>>>>> pretending to be in combat.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for
> >>>>>>>>> your
> >>>>>>>>> relative or yourself?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> A) This common crime?
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> B) or more like this?
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!"
> >>>>>>>> statement!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so
> >>>>>>>> scary, at
> >>>>>>>> least to me and mine.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S.
> >>>>>>>> household
> >>>>>>>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
> >>>>>>>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> {1} in the real world.
> >>>>>>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying
> >>>>>>>>> devices
> >>>>>>>>> which always hit the intended target such as the
> >>>>>>>>> bad guy's
> >>>>>>>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
> >>>>>>>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head
> >>>>>>>>> with magic
> >>>>>>>>> sound effects.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun
> >>>>>>>> culture.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
> >>>>>>> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
> >>>>>>> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right
> >>>>>>> moment[1].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
> >>>>>>> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
> >>>>>>> different situation.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
> >>>>>> Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the
> >>>>>> most
> >>>>>> recent edition of the study are the following:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
> >>>>>> justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
> >>>>>> firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
> >>>>>> homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for
> >>>>>> every
> >>>>>> justifiable homicide.
> >>>>>> Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
> >>>>>> self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
> >>>>>> percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> >>>>>> and 2016.
> >>>>>> Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
> >>>>>> self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
> >>>>>> percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> >>>>>> and 2016.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
> >>>>>> most striking is that in a nation of more than 300
> >>>>>> million
> >>>>>> guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting?
> >>>>>>> I'm
> >>>>>>> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of
> >>>>>> firearms,
> >>>>>> one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I
> >>>>>> know many
> >>>>>> hunters and would have been one if my life were just a
> >>>>>> tiny
> >>>>>> bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept
> >>>>>> some
> >>>>>> invitations.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot
> >>>>> at,
> >>>>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
> >>>>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
> >>>>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at."
> >>>> Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
> >>>> home invasions are far, far from common - although I can
> >>>> talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
> >>>>
> >>>> One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from
> >>>> me. I don't know if they've figured out the
> >>>> motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the
> >>>> front door in the dead of night and started shooting
> >>>> at several people (not family members) gathered in the
> >>>> living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
> >>>> not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody
> >>>> shot back, because how would you know
> >>>> to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
> >>>>
> >>>> The other event I knew about involved the vice president
> >>>> of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
> >>>> an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels
> >>>> aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
> >>>> door at night, and the VP came to the door in his
> >>>> pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
> >>>> gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own
> >>>> gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
> >>>> him as he ran, killing him.
> >>>>
> >>>> Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV
> >>>> action shootings.
> >>>>
> >>>>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than
> >>>> Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
> >>>> I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you
> >>>> lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
> >>>>
> >>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
> >>>>
> >>>> “It’s pretty rare,†David Hemenway, director of
> >>>> the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said,
> >>>> despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is
> >>>> exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country
> >>>> than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of
> >>>> gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were
> >>>> suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of
> >>>> people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun
> >>>> to protect themselves — and the average person had
> >>>> “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a
> >>>> gun in self-defense,†Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what
> >>>> researchers call “self-defense gun use†is tricky. A
> >>>> study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000
> >>>> to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.†A large
> >>>> majority of firearms researchers, however, “think
> >>>> that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,†Dr.
> >>>> Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown
> >>>> to report the timing and frequencies of events
> >>>> inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Additionally, people involved in gun violence often
> >>>> claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case
> >>>> don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias
> >>>> that can make data unreliable. And when trying to
> >>>> measure rare events, any margin of survey error can
> >>>> create huge variables in the results."
> >>>>
> >>>> Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers,
> >>>> however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
> >>>>
> >>>> And even if it were true, how many developed countries
> >>>> does that apply to? Why?
> >>>>
> >>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>
> >>> https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
> >>>
> >>> https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
> >>>
> >>> http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
> >>>
> >>> https://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html
> >>>
> >>> https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm/
> >>>
> >>> (:-)
> >> Sorry, I missed one. See
> >> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388714
> >
> > I think I can find as many articles "proving" the existence
> > of winged garden fairies. Yes, gun nuts come up with
> > citations of other gun nuts. Actual crime researchers come
> > up with completely different numbers.
> >
> > But the claims cited above seem to omit the questions I keep
> > asking - like, how is it that other "developed" countries
> > with far, far less private gun ownership don't have far
> > greater violent crime rates? For example, why aren't those
> > poor defenseless Brits totally overwhelmed by people
> > breaking into their homes in the dead of night?
> >
> >
> Not only.
>
> https://chicago.suntimes.com/2021/10/8/22704266/carjackings-carjacking-crisis-chicago-cook-county-sheriff-tom-dart-toyota-camry-sunday-worst-day
>
> Which means of course
>
> https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2021/11/29/ccw-holder-fires-gun-attempted-carjacker-roseland/
>
> https://abc7chicago.com/south-loop-shooting-crime-robbery/5272059/

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:25:32 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 1:11 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 6:56:03 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that have far
> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought up the
> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >>>>>>>>> rape and
> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >>>>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >>>>>>>>> laws,
> >>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their hallways
> >>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
> >>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of saying
> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
> >>>>>>> afraid
> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>>>>> population.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >>>>> policies?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid fire
> >>>>> handgun?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >>>>
> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
> >>>> home self-defense.
> >>>
> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
> >>> pretending to be in combat.
> >>>
> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >>>> relative or yourself?
> >>>>
> >>>> A)Â This common crime?
> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> B) or more like this?
> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
> >>>
> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
> >>> least to me and mine.
> >>>
> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> {1} in the real world.
> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
> >>>> sound effects.
> >>>
> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
> >>>
> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
> >>
> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in the
> >> morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly different
> >> situation.
> >>
> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1]Hunters of possibly-lethal-when wounded game, from deer
> >> to moose, and hunters in areas of probable danger from
> >> wolves, etc (Heck, even cyclists on the tundra, as 3 friends
> >> who rode north out of Inuvik learned regarding polar bears)
> >> ought to damned well have a sidearm handy. Those are
> >> frequently M1911A1 in .45ACP.
> >>
> >
> > Polar bears and a 45ACP? I'd say no no no. Hitting him with that might just make him mad.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Then again, some guys don't. Not far from here recently:
> >> https://dailydodge.com/columbia-county-hunter-rescued/
> That was the specific recommendation of the local guide in
> Inuvik, who is a professional guide and hunter, and so
> that's what my friends carried.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 10:55:15 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com 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.

Switzerland has compulsory military service for men. Plus required short services for a number of years after the compulsory service. AND, the rate of gun ownership is about 27 guns per 100 population. WAY DOWN from the USA rate of 120 guns for 100 persons. USA has not had compulsory military service for about 45 years now. And even then it was not really too compulsory, except for the poor. Yet the USA has five times more guns than Switzerland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
https://www.google.com/search?q=switzerland+compulsory+military+service&sxsrf=APq-WBsuB1DAMY-IVjdgbWJJPEHg_uNh7A%3A1646255375867&source=hp&ei=D90fYrDlL4uZptQPlZq52A0&iflsig=AHkkrS4AAAAAYh_rHyAk0mDlENS-wwPRJ8g46pO7WLH_&oq=switzerland+compulsory+military&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EAEYADIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQhgMyBQgAEIYDMgUIABCGAzIFCAAQhgM6BggAEBYQHlAAWOdPYLZfaABwAHgDgAGXEIgBqlySAQs1LTIuMS4yLjMuMZgBAKABAQ&sclient=gws-wiz
"Every Swiss man is required to serve in the military or in the alternative civilian service. In most cases, the military service obligation applies from age 18 to 30. The earliest you can apply for civilian service is after you have been found fit for military service as part of the recruitment process."
"The basic military service is about 21 weeks long; additional training, however, is required throughout adulthood. Most commonly it amounts to six training periods of 19 days each (Verordnung über die Militärdienstpflicht (Compulsory Service Regulation) (Nov. 19, 2003), as amended, SR 512..21)."

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:55:00 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have said these things many times before but Frank believes in ignoring them in order to maintain his mythological US crime rates. Sweden and France have higher rates of violent crimes. Why? For the same reason the US has high rates - open borders and high immigration. In fact, the US is almost identical to Mexico whose gangs have taken over the US thanks to Biden having wide open borders. In fact, the people crossing out southern borders almost ALL come from countries much more violent than the US. Most of the "safer" countries do not allow immigration and have serious punishments for breaking laws. Hey, Frank, why don't you join MS-13 in your idiotic belief that you can be protected by someone else.

Tommy, don't you get tired of being proven a liar time and time and time again. Everyone knows you are a liar, but you don't have to prove it every single day.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/violent-crime-rates-by-country
Table at the bottom of the page listing all the countries and violent crime rates for 1000 people. I separated out the three countries mentioned by Tommy.
Country Homicide SeriousAssault SexualViolence Robbery (5 columns of name/numbers)
France 1.2 375.63 64.1 154.34
Sweden 1.08 47.22 190.6 86.71
America 4.96 246.84 NA 86.24

Apologies for the difficulty of reading the numbers and columns. First column is the country. Then numbers for Murder, Assault, Rape, Robbery.

America (USA) murders 4-5 times more than France and Sweden. Assaults, fights, beating up, Sweden is gentle. France worst. But USA is not too far from France in beating people up. Rape, USA didn't want this number shown. France is bad I guess. Sweden is raping all the time it seems. But see the explanation below before judging Sweden on rape too harshly. Robbery, France is bad. Sweden and USA tied for robbing.

Concerning RAPE in Sweden. Read below explanation.
"Rape statistics by country perfectly illustrate the challenges that make country-to-country data difficult to compare. Rape stats are confounded by several factors. To begin with, an overwhelming majority of rapes go unreported–up to 90% by some estimates–particularly in countries in which rape victims may be ostracized or even slain by their own families in an honor killing.

What's more, different countries have vastly different definitions of rape, some of which are much narrower than others. For example, some countries consider spousal rape to be a non-crime, or count every occurrence of rape between the same two people (say, an uncle and niece) as a single offense. In these countries, fewer acts qualify as rape, and even those that do are likely to go unreported.

Sweden, on the other hand, has a very broad definition of rape and excellent support for the victims. This means more crimes qualify as rape and the victims of those acts are more likely to report the crime. As a result, Sweden's rape rate seems to be quite high. However, this is a misleading assumption. In fact, Sweden would land near the middle of the pack in Europe if one were to apply Sweden's forward-thinking definition of rape to every other country as well. On the other hand, the frequency of rape in most other top-10 countries (except Australia, whose definition is already quite broad) would likely be much higher if they adopted Sweden's definitions and reporting/support systems."

Sweden is a garden of Eden. USA is worst. But France is getting down there with USA too. It can't be too smug.

On 3/2/2022 3:03 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:25:32 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 3/2/2022 1:11 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 6:56:03 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that have far
>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought up the
>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their hallways
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of saying
>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>>>>> population.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>>>>>> policies?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid fire
>>>>>>> handgun?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>>>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
>>>>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
>>>>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
>>>>>> home self-defense.
>>>>>
>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
>>>>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
>>>>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>>>>> pretending to be in combat.
>>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>>>>> relative or yourself?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A)Â This common crime?
>>>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> B) or more like this?
>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>>>>
>>>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
>>>>> least to me and mine.
>>>>>
>>>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
>>>>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>>>>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> {1} in the real world.
>>>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
>>>>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
>>>>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>>>>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
>>>>>> sound effects.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>>>>
>>>> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
>>>> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
>>>> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
>>>>
>>>> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in the
>>>> morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly different
>>>> situation.
>>>>
>>>> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
>>>> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [1]Hunters of possibly-lethal-when wounded game, from deer
>>>> to moose, and hunters in areas of probable danger from
>>>> wolves, etc (Heck, even cyclists on the tundra, as 3 friends
>>>> who rode north out of Inuvik learned regarding polar bears)
>>>> ought to damned well have a sidearm handy. Those are
>>>> frequently M1911A1 in .45ACP.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Polar bears and a 45ACP? I'd say no no no. Hitting him with that might just make him mad.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Then again, some guys don't. Not far from here recently:
>>>> https://dailydodge.com/columbia-county-hunter-rescued/
>> That was the specific recommendation of the local guide in
>> Inuvik, who is a professional guide and hunter, and so
>> that's what my friends carried.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 12:55:00 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have said these things many times before but Frank believes in ignoring them in order to maintain his mythological US crime rates. Sweden and France have higher rates of violent crimes. Why? For the same reason the US has high rates - open borders and high immigration. In fact, the US is almost identical to Mexico whose gangs have taken over the US thanks to Biden having wide open borders.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/drug-seizure-statistics
Tommy boy, above is a link to the pounds of drugs seized at the US borders by the US Customs and Border Protection service. The very first chart shows the pounds of drugs seized at the borders each month. Every month has variability in pounds of drugs seized. 2019-2020-2021-2022 reported. By Fiscal Year, October 1 start of USA fiscal year. But looking at the trend lines for each year, it appears the drug trade is decreasing a little bit under Biden in 2021 and 2022. Looks like 2020, Trump final year, was the worst of all. But Biden's two years, 2021 and 2022, drug trade is trending down..

> In fact, the people crossing out southern borders almost ALL come from countries much more violent than the US. Most of the "safer" countries do not allow immigration and have serious punishments for breaking laws. Hey, Frank, why don't you join MS-13 in your idiotic belief that you can be protected by someone else.

On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:02:40 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 00:51:37 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
><ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 11:51:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>>> ><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>> > On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> are ...
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> have far
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> up the
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> rape and
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> going to
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> to do
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> laws,
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> etc.
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> don't
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> about
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> hallways
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> and
>>> >>> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
>>> >>> >>>>>>> are
>>> >>> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>> >>> >>>>>>> saying
>>> >>> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>> >>> >>>>>>> afraid
>>> >>> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>> >>> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>> >>> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>> >>> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>> >>> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>> >>> >>>>>> population.
>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>> >>> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>> >>> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>> >>> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>> >>> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>> >>> >>>>> policies?
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>> >>> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>>> >>> >>>>> fire
>>> >>> >>>>> handgun?
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>> >>> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
>>> >>> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
>>> >>> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
>>> >>> >>>> home self-defense.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
>>> >>> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
>>> >>> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>>> >>> >>> pretending to be in combat.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>> >>> >>>> relative or yourself?
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> A) This common crime?
>>> >>> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>> B) or more like this?
>>> >>> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
>>> >>> >>> least to me and mine.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
>>> >>> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>>> >>> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>>> {1} in the real world.
>>> >>> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
>>> >>> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
>>> >>> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>>> >>> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
>>> >>> >>>> sound effects.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
>>> >>> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
>>> >>> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
>>> >>> >>
>>> >>> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
>>> >>> >> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
>>> >>> >> different situation.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
>>> >>> > Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
>>> >>> > recent edition of the study are the following:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
>>> >>> > justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
>>> >>> > firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
>>> >>> > homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
>>> >>> > justifiable homicide.
>>> >>> > Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
>>> >>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
>>> >>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>>> >>> > and 2016.
>>> >>> > Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
>>> >>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
>>> >>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>>> >>> > and 2016.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
>>> >>> > most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
>>> >>> > guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
>>> >>> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
>>> >>> > one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
>>> >>> > hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
>>> >>> > bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
>>> >>> > invitations.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
>>> >>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
>>> >>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
>>> >>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
>>> >>
>>> >>Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
>>> >>home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
>>> >>
>>> >>One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from me. I don't know if they've figured out the
>>> >>motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the front door in the dead of night and started shooting
>>> >>at several people (not family members) gathered in the living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
>>> >>not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody shot back, because how would you know
>>> >>to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
>>> >>
>>> >>The other event I knew about involved the vice president of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
>>> >>an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
>>> >>door at night, and the VP came to the door in his pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
>>> >>gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
>>> >>him as he ran, killing him.
>>> >>
>>> >>Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV action shootings.
>>> >>
>>> >>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
>>> >>
>>> >>"More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
>>> >>I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
>>> >>
>>> >>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
>>> >>
>>> >>"But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
>>> >>
>>> >>“It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said, despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun to protect themselves — and the average person had “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
>>> >>
>>> >>"Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large majority of firearms researchers, however, “think that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr. Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown to report the timing and frequencies of events inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
>>> >>
>>> >>"Additionally, people involved in gun violence often claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias that can make data unreliable. And when trying to measure rare events, any margin of survey error can create huge variables in the results."
>>> >>
>>> >>Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers, however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
>>> >>
>>> >>And even if it were true, how many developed countries does that apply to? Why?
>>> >>
>>> >>- Frank Krygowski
>>> >
>>> >https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
>>> >https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
>>> >http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
>>> >https://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html
>>> >https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm/
>>> >
>>> >(:-)
>>> Sorry, I missed one. See
>>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145
>>
>>John, I'm worried about you. The link above is a listing of results from a survey of gun owners. One third or something of the respondents said the gun saved their lives or property. Or something like that. You and I both know survey answers are not facts. They are just opinions. Especially in regard to something like whether a gun saved someone's life. The above link is about as credible as asking Tommy if he is a genius. Would you submit that as a fact in a court of law?
>>
>Well, of course. After all Frank links to wild eyed "gun grabbers" so
>why can't I link to a sensible, sober, analysis of gun owners.(:-)

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 1:49:24 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 3/2/2022 3:03 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 7:25:32 AM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 3/2/2022 1:11 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 6:56:03 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
> >>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
> >>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
> >>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that have far
> >>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought up the
> >>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >>>>>>>>>>> rape and
> >>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >>>>>>>>>>> going to
> >>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >>>>>>>>>>> to do
> >>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >>>>>>>>>>> laws,
> >>>>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >>>>>>>>>>> don't
> >>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >>>>>>>>>>> about
> >>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >>>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their hallways
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
> >>>>>>>>> are
> >>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of saying
> >>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
> >>>>>>>>> afraid
> >>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>>>>>>> population.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >>>>>>> policies?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid fire
> >>>>>>> handgun?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >>>>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
> >>>>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
> >>>>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
> >>>>>> home self-defense.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
> >>>>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
> >>>>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
> >>>>> pretending to be in combat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >>>>>> relative or yourself?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A)Â This common crime?
> >>>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> B) or more like this?
> >>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
> >>>>> least to me and mine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
> >>>>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
> >>>>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> {1} in the real world.
> >>>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
> >>>>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
> >>>>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
> >>>>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
> >>>>>> sound effects.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
> >>>> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
> >>>> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
> >>>>
> >>>> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in the
> >>>> morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly different
> >>>> situation.
> >>>>
> >>>> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
> >>>> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> [1]Hunters of possibly-lethal-when wounded game, from deer
> >>>> to moose, and hunters in areas of probable danger from
> >>>> wolves, etc (Heck, even cyclists on the tundra, as 3 friends
> >>>> who rode north out of Inuvik learned regarding polar bears)
> >>>> ought to damned well have a sidearm handy. Those are
> >>>> frequently M1911A1 in .45ACP.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Polar bears and a 45ACP? I'd say no no no. Hitting him with that might just make him mad.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Then again, some guys don't. Not far from here recently:
> >>>> https://dailydodge.com/columbia-county-hunter-rescued/
> >> That was the specific recommendation of the local guide in
> >> Inuvik, who is a professional guide and hunter, and so
> >> that's what my friends carried.
>
> >
> > Huh. Over on the YouTube gun videos, they always lovingly refer to the 45 ACP as a "Man Stopper". But polar bears are about 5 times bigger than a man. I think a 45 ACP against a polar bear would be akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight saying. Now I am not saying ANY pistol is good against a bear. No. Unless its one of those half inch caliber pistols that breaks your arm when you shoot it. Big rifles are needed to shoot bears. Not hand held pistols.
> >
> I'm not an expert but I think you have that right.
>
> If one were hunting bear (pick a subspecies) a large bore
> rifle with a good long distance scope would seem prudent!
> But as in other situations I mentioned above, sometimes
> things go awry and a personal sidearm is your last defense.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:53:12 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 9:49 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 3/1/2022 7:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> says I was the one who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> changed the subject?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> topic of Rape, per se.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.â€?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to
>>>>>>>>>> accept. If you can't
>>>>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the
>>>>>>>>> U.S. is worse than
>>>>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law
>>>>>>>> abiding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>>>>> overcome the
>>>>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>>>>> makes no
>>>>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>>>>> turn and post
>>>>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>>>> inherently?
>>>>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>>>>> have a point.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>>>> French, Swedes
>>>>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>>>>> look up their
>>>>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going
>>>>>>> to assume that
>>>>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>>>>> their national
>>>>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>> difference in how
>>>>>>> people behave.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>> don't change the
>>>>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>>>>> we will
>>>>>> continue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make
>>>>>> a big
>>>>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>>>>> imagination? Or that
>>>>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>>>>> inhabitants of
>>>>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>>>>> why they act
>>>>>> as they do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>>>>> of a vivid
>>>>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>>>>> rates the
>>>>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>>>>> facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I wonder if we have a natural experiment to use in
>>>>> comparison? Oh, maybe we do. The national 55mph speed
>>>>> limit was imposed on the States. Even States unwilling
>>>>> were coerced/bribed with the Highway Trust Fund into
>>>>> compliance, more or less[1].
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how's speed limit compliance going?
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/s88fcy/flow_of_traffic_on_the_beltline/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That conversation is ubiquitous- any expressway, any
>>>>> Interstate. So would you maintain that a change of law
>>>>> effected a change in countenance?
>>>>
>>>> Speed limits absolutely make a difference. No, they are not
>>>> perfect - and Andrew, you really need to drop the idea that
>>>> imperfect results are the same as zero results.
>>>>
>>>> Some cases in point: According to Wikipedia, the German
>>>> Autobahn has reported average speeds of 88 mph in its
>>>> unrestricted zones. It has 72 mph in its 75 mph (120 kph)
>>>> zones.
>>>>
>>>> In the U.S., Wyoming is noted for zero, or very lax speed
>>>> enforcement plus high speed limits (up to 80 mph). South
>>>> Dakota also allows speeds up to 80, and New Mexico allows up
>>>> to 75mph. Which states have the fastest drivers? "#1
>>>> Wyoming: 21.09% of drivers exceed 70 mph. #2 South Dakota:
>>>> 17.07% #3 New Mexico: 16.50% ."
>>>>
>>>> And in my own nearby city: For a couple years, the twisty
>>>> inner city freeway long had a bad reputation for both
>>>> speeding and serious crashes. Then came enforcement - sort
>>>> of. The city began using speed cameras, and I say "sort of"
>>>> because no ticket could be issued until the limit was
>>>> exceeded by 10 mph. The result? Speeding became a far
>>>> smaller problem, and serious crashes dropped even more.
>>>>
>>>> Then some legislators from the "Law and Order" party stepped
>>>> in and wrote laws to discourage the use of speed cameras.
>>>> Because The Constitution has a clause stating that anyone
>>>> can drive any speed they want to, I guess.
>>>>
>>>> The major point? There will always be speeders and other
>>>> assholes. But even though they are not perfect, laws DO
>>>> affect people's behaviors, especially when properly enforced.
>>>>
>>>> (BTW, Germany does use speed cameras.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, here we are, just as you wish.
>>>
>>> 'Shall not be infringed' has come to mean only calibers
>>> smaller than .50, no full auto, permanent record of purchase
>>> at the Federally licensed dealer, a Federal excise tax on
>>> firearms and ammunition. The various States add their own
>>> taxes, licensing[1] and restrictions including severe
>>> restrictions on carry[2]. Municipalities add even more
>>> infringements.
>>>
>>> I will assume your use of the word 'asshole' in place of
>>> 'driver' has some meaning in this conversation as well.
>>>
>>> [1] I can't take my ex to a pistol range near her home in IL
>>> without an Illinois FOID card. She doesn't own a firearm,
>>> but can't go into a range without the State card.
>>>
>>> [2] This is currently in litigation:
>>> https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/supreme-court-arguments-new-york-gun-case-signal-uphill-battle-defend-overly
>>
>>
>> I think that the best argument to Frank's assertions is that: "the
>> right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
>> is part of the fundamental law of the U.S.
>> But... it can be changed or deleted and I believe that the basic
>> Constitution has been amended some 27 times.
>>
>> So, logically, if possession/ownership of firearms is really such a
>> valid point of argument why hasn't the constitution been amended to
>> prohibit it?
>>
>> And before Frank starts waving his arms in the air and shouting, "It
>> should Be! It Should Be!" one might stop and give some consideration
>> to the fact that the U.S. is a democracy and the fundamental
>> philosophy behind a democracy is that the individual doesn't count.
>> The majority rules.
>
>"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."

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:10:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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)  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.

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.

So effectively your "benefits" are, in reality, simply excuses for a
device that results in more people killed in one year then 10 years of
"mass shootings".

I might also mention that the freedom to posses firearms is enshrined
in the U.S.'s fundamental law.

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.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 2:47:12 PM UTC-8, 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.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 11:15:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 3/2/2022 12:50 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Americans,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Irish,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have far
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rape and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laws,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _now_.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
>>>>>>>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
>>>>>>>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hallways
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
>>>>>>>>>>>> saying
>>>>>>>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
>>>>>>>>>>>> afraid
>>>>>>>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
>>>>>>>>>>>> different weaponry?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
>>>>>>>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
>>>>>>>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
>>>>>>>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
>>>>>>>>>>> population.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
>>>>>>>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
>>>>>>>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
>>>>>>>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
>>>>>>>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
>>>>>>>>>> policies?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
>>>>>>>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
>>>>>>>>>> fire
>>>>>>>>>> handgun?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
>>>>>>>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
>>>>>>>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
>>>>>>>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
>>>>>>>>> home self-defense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
>>>>>>>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
>>>>>>>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
>>>>>>>> pretending to be in combat.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
>>>>>>>>> relative or yourself?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A) This common crime?
>>>>>>>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> B) or more like this?
>>>>>>>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
>>>>>>>> least to me and mine.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
>>>>>>>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
>>>>>>>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> {1} in the real world.
>>>>>>>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
>>>>>>>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
>>>>>>>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
>>>>>>>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
>>>>>>>>> sound effects.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
>>>>>>> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
>>>>>>> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
>>>>>>> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
>>>>>>> different situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
>>>>>> Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
>>>>>> recent edition of the study are the following:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
>>>>>> justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
>>>>>> firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
>>>>>> homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
>>>>>> justifiable homicide.
>>>>>> Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
>>>>>> self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
>>>>>> percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>>>>>> and 2016.
>>>>>> Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
>>>>>> self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
>>>>>> percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
>>>>>> and 2016.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
>>>>>> most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
>>>>>> guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
>>>>>>> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
>>>>>> one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
>>>>>> hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
>>>>>> bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
>>>>>> invitations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
>>>>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
>>>>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
>>>>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
>>>> home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
>>>>
>>>> One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from me. I don't know if they've figured out the
>>>> motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the front door in the dead of night and started shooting
>>>> at several people (not family members) gathered in the living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
>>>> not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody shot back, because how would you know
>>>> to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
>>>>
>>>> The other event I knew about involved the vice president of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
>>>> an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
>>>> door at night, and the VP came to the door in his pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
>>>> gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
>>>> him as he ran, killing him.
>>>>
>>>> Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV action shootings.
>>>>
>>>>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
>>>>
>>>> "More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
>>>> I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
>>>>
>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
>>>>
>>>> "But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
>>>>
>>>> “It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said, despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun to protect themselves — and the average person had “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
>>>>
>>>> "Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large majority of firearms researchers, however, “think that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr. Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown to report the timing and frequencies of events inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
>>>>
>>>> "Additionally, people involved in gun violence often claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias that can make data unreliable. And when trying to measure rare events, any margin of survey error can create huge variables in the results."
>>>>
>>>> Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers, however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
>>>>
>>>> And even if it were true, how many developed countries does that apply to? Why?
>>>>
>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>> https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
>>> https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
>>> http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
>>> https://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html
>>> https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm/
>>>
>>> (:-)
>> Sorry, I missed one. See
>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=388714
>
>I think I can find as many articles "proving" the existence of winged
>garden fairies. Yes, gun nuts come up with citations of other gun nuts.
>Actual crime researchers come up with completely different numbers.
>
>But the claims cited above seem to omit the questions I keep asking -
>like, how is it that other "developed" countries with far, far less
>private gun ownership don't have far greater violent crime rates? For
>example, why aren't those poor defenseless Brits totally overwhelmed by
>people breaking into their homes in the dead of night?

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)  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.

On Wednesday, March 2, 2022 at 4:25:38 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 18:02:40 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 2 Mar 2022 00:51:37 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> ><ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 11:51:02 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 02 Mar 2022 12:39:30 +0700, John B. <sloc...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> >On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 19:59:15 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>> ><frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >>On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 8:38:58 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >>> On 3/1/2022 7:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>> > On 3/1/2022 7:56 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >>> >> On 3/1/2022 6:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>> >>> On 3/1/2022 4:34 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>> On 3/1/2022 2:52 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>>> On 3/1/2022 3:44 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>>>> On 3/1/2022 1:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 11:47 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> On 3/1/2022 10:04 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> >
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> are ...
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> inherently? genetically? ... more civilized than
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Americans,
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> you'll have a point.
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits,
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Irish,
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> French, Swedes and so many other countries that
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> have far
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> fewer gun deaths than the U.S. (Since you brought
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> up the
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> subject, I'll rely on you to look up their rates of
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> rape and
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> other violent crimes.)
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> going to
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> assume that differences in gun death rates have a lot
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> to do
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> with their national policies, as implemented by their
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> laws,
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> etc.
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> difference in how people behave.
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> don't
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> change the subject, John. This is what we are talking
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> about
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> _now_.
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> When Andrew Cuomo was Mr Cinton's HUD Secretary, he
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> announced a firearm buyback program for residents of
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> public housing. Reporter asked if firearms made public
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> housing dangerous or if residents felt a need to arm
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> themselves for  protection because their
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> hallways
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> and
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>> neighborhoods had become more dangerous.
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> Which doesn't address John's implication that Americans
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> are
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> just fundamentally evil. I guess that's his way of
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> saying
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> that laws and policies make no difference.
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> But I wonder what those public housing residents are
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> afraid
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> of? Is it punks with slingshots? Or punks with some
> >>> >>> >>>>>>> different weaponry?
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>> What do people in violent neighborhoods fear? Knives,
> >>> >>> >>>>>> beatings, assaults of various severity and yes firearms.
> >>> >>> >>>>>> Get rid of firearms and you have the same vicious people
> >>> >>> >>>>>> then add in an incitement to tyranny of an unarmed
> >>> >>> >>>>>> population.
> >>> >>> >>>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>> For an elderly woman with some guy coming through her
> >>> >>> >>>>>> bedroom window, a knife or club is of limited utility.
> >>> >>> >>>>>> When seconds matter, 911 is just twenty minutes away.
> >>> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>> As usual, I wonder about other countries. Do they not have
> >>> >>> >>>>> the problems you describe to the degree Americans do? If
> >>> >>> >>>>> they don't, why not? Is it genetics? Or is it laws and
> >>> >>> >>>>> policies?
> >>> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>> If they do have the problems, how do they manage them
> >>> >>> >>>>> without every elderly woman owning an AR rifle or rapid
> >>> >>> >>>>> fire
> >>> >>> >>>>> handgun?
> >>> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>> What do you mean by 'rapid fire' ? Typical home defense
> >>> >>> >>>> pistols are revolvers and striker type 9mm (or .380 /.40).
> >>> >>> >>>> Those all fire at the same speed[1].
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>> I'll bet you can't find even one police or news report in
> >>> >>> >>>> the past year in USA where a full-auto pistol was used for
> >>> >>> >>>> home self-defense.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> I did not say "full auto." And I'd say even nine rounds at
> >>> >>> >>> two rounds per second qualifies as "rapid fire." Hunters
> >>> >>> >>> don't do that. Target shooters do that only if they're
> >>> >>> >>> pretending to be in combat.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>> OTOH which of these scenarios would you prefer for your
> >>> >>> >>>> relative or yourself?
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>> A) This common crime?
> >>> >>> >>>> https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-wordle-mother-saved-lincolnwood-20220211-ecz5istdfrhvzdin4kibdwyrmi-story.html
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>> B) or more like this?
> >>> >>> >>>> https://www.foxnews.com/us/elderly-man-shoots-kills-half-naked-home-intruder-who-assaulted-his-wife
> >>> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> "Common crime"?? Talk about a "Danger! Danger!" statement!
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> Somehow, the universe I live in is not nearly so scary, at
> >>> >>> >>> least to me and mine.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> But yet again: Why is it necessary for each U.S. household
> >>> >>> >>> to be armed for protection? Why is it not necessary in
> >>> >>> >>> Canada, Britain, Norway, Portugal...
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>>> {1} in the real world.
> >>> >>> >>>> In TeeVee world, firearms are magic lead-spraying devices
> >>> >>> >>>> which always hit the intended target such as the bad guy's
> >>> >>> >>>> wrist when wielded by good guy. Bad guy firearms also
> >>> >>> >>>> spray huge quantities just over good guy's head with magic
> >>> >>> >>>> sound effects.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>> I'm well aware of that silly glorification of gun culture.
> >>> >>> >>>
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> Hunters ideally stalk in stealth, carefully positioned
> >>> >>> >> downwind and from occlusion, and take great pains to
> >>> >>> >> accurately sight in a lethal shot at the right moment[1].
> >>> >>> >>
> >>> >>> >> A woman awakened to the sound of breaking glass at 3 in
> >>> >>> >> the morning needs the second, third, nth shot. Utterly
> >>> >>> >> different situation.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > That's as imaginary as the TV show you referenced.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > "Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime
> >>> >>> > Victimization Survey (NCVS). Among the findings of the most
> >>> >>> > recent edition of the study are the following:
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > In 2017, the FBI reports there were only 298
> >>> >>> > justifiable homicides involving a private citizen using a
> >>> >>> > firearm. That same year, there were 10,380 criminal gun
> >>> >>> > homicides. Guns were used in 35 criminal homicides for every
> >>> >>> > justifiable homicide.
> >>> >>> > Intended victims of violent crimes engaged in
> >>> >>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 1.1
> >>> >>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> >>> >>> > and 2016.
> >>> >>> > Intended victims of property crimes engaged in
> >>> >>> > self-protective behavior that involved a firearm in 0.3
> >>> >>> > percent of attempted and completed incidents between 2014
> >>> >>> > and 2016.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > When analyzing the most reliable data available, what is
> >>> >>> > most striking is that in a nation of more than 300 million
> >>> >>> > guns, how rarely firearms are used in self-defense."
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >> Oh by the way do you have some fixation with hunting? I'm
> >>> >>> >> not a hunter myself but you sure reference that a lot.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> > Hunting is a legitimate and non-fictional use of firearms,
> >>> >>> > one I heartily approve of. I'm not a hunter, but I know many
> >>> >>> > hunters and would have been one if my life were just a tiny
> >>> >>> > bit different - that is, if I'd had the time to accept some
> >>> >>> > invitations.
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> >
> >>> >>> To my point, we agree that home invaders are often shot at,
> >>> >>> and to some degree wounded but _seldom fatally_, as you
> >>> >>> note. Unlike hunters, there's a lack of calm deliberate
> >>> >>> setup and preparation. I noted that difference earlier.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Sorry, I do NOT agree "home invaders are often shot at." Not by any rational definition of "often." First,
> >>> >>home invasions are far, far from common - although I can talk about two examples I'm familiar with.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>One happened about two years ago maybe five miles from me. I don't know if they've figured out the
> >>> >>motivation, but it seemed weird. A punk broke in the front door in the dead of night and started shooting
> >>> >>at several people (not family members) gathered in the living room. He killed a little kid, apparently
> >>> >>not the intended target, and immediately ran off. Nobody shot back, because how would you know
> >>> >>to be "Quick Draw McGraw" at the ready?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>The other event I knew about involved the vice president of the manufacturing firm I worked at as
> >>> >>an engineer. He had a very nice house with glass panels aside the front door. A punk pounded on the
> >>> >>door at night, and the VP came to the door in his pajamas. He opened the door, saw the punk had a
> >>> >>gun and turned around to run up the stairs for his own gun. The punk broke a glass panel and shot
> >>> >>him as he ran, killing him.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Whipping out a gun for defense is as imaginary as the TV action shootings.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>> https://fee.org/articles/more-people-use-a-gun-in-self-defense-each-year-than-die-in-car-accidents/
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"More People Use a Gun in Self-Defense Each Year Than Die in Car Accidents"?? That's very unlikely!
> >>> >>I put it in the same category as "This pill can help you lose up to 50 pounds in a month!"
> >>> >>
> >>> >>https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/12/podcasts/daily-newsletter-self-defense-gun-use.html
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"But how often are guns used in self-defense, really?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>“It’s pretty rare,” David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, said, despite the fact that gun violence in the U.S. is exceptionally common. There are more guns in the country than people, and nearly 40,000 Americans died because of gun violence in 2019. A majority of those deaths were suicides. From 2007 to 2011, only about 1 percent of people who were crime victims claimed to have used a gun to protect themselves — and the average person had “basically no chance in their lifetime ever to use a gun in self-defense,” Dr. Hemenway told NPR in 2018.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"Still, getting exact numbers on the prevalence of what researchers call “self-defense gun use” is tricky. A study cited by the C.D.C. indicates a “range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.” A large majority of firearms researchers, however, “think that’s a wild overestimate for two reasons,” Dr. Hemenway said. First, survey respondents are often shown to report the timing and frequencies of events inaccurately, a phenomenon known as the telescoping effect.
> >>> >>
> >>> >>"Additionally, people involved in gun violence often claim self-defense, even if the facts of the case don’t support that claim — a self-presentation bias that can make data unreliable. And when trying to measure rare events, any margin of survey error can create huge variables in the results."
> >>> >>
> >>> >>Again: "A large majority of firearms researchers, however, think that’s a wild overestimate."
> >>> >>
> >>> >>And even if it were true, how many developed countries does that apply to? Why?
> >>> >>
> >>> >>- Frank Krygowski
> >>> >
> >>> >https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/29/12-times-guns-saved-lives/
> >>> >https://fee.org/articles/guns-prevent-thousands-of-crimes-every-day-research-show/
> >>> >http://thinkaboutnow.com/2016/06/study-guns-stop-crime-2-5-million-times-each-year/
> >>> >https://stories.avvo.com/crime/8-horrible-crimes-stopped-by-legal-gun-owners.html
> >>> >https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm/
> >>> >
> >>> >(:-)
> >>> Sorry, I missed one. See
> >>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3887145
> >>
> >>John, I'm worried about you. The link above is a listing of results from a survey of gun owners. One third or something of the respondents said the gun saved their lives or property. Or something like that. You and I both know survey answers are not facts. They are just opinions. Especially in regard to something like whether a gun saved someone's life. The above link is about as credible as asking Tommy if he is a genius. Would you submit that as a fact in a court of law?
> >>
> >Well, of course. After all Frank links to wild eyed "gun grabbers" so
> >why can't I link to a sensible, sober, analysis of gun owners.(:-)
> Further to the above. I wonder whether the good
> russell...@yahoo.com actually read the report I listed?

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.