On 5/29/2022 7:54 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:03:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/2022 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
>>>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
>>>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>>>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party can usually
>>>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S. Senate rules
>>>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And Republicans in the
>>>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding the
>>>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA: Even a
>>>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But they're scammed
>>>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example) absolutely convinced
>>>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine working,
>>>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've got a big
>>>>>> mansion, right?
>>>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who die in car
>>>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing that masks and
>>>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>>>> --
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> John B.
>>>>
>>>> Concerning the car deaths, there have been lots of federal rules and regulations put into affect. From speed limits to seatbelts being mandatory when in the car to cars having airbags to improving the structure of cars when crashing and rollovers. So the political parties seem to care a great deal about killing people in cars and pass lots of laws. But one political party does not care at all about guns killing people. So what. No new laws. Lets eliminate the existing laws.
>>>
>>> Come now. There have been "gun laws", dating back to Pilgrim days. In
>>> the 1800's in the West there were gun laws, in fact the so called O.K.
>>> Corral shooting was over a violation of the Town's gun laws.At least
>>> that was the ostensible reason. New York passed the Sullivan Act in
>>> 1911.
>>>
>>> But how many gun laws do you need? "Don't shoot the SOB or you go to
>>> jail", ought to be sufficient.
>>
>> In some fanciful ideal world, that might be true. But there have been
>> literally hundreds of mass shootings already this year. Shootings in
>> schools are horribly common, and threats of them are even more common.
>> The U.S. gun murder rate is horribly high when compared with other
>> similar countries. Obviously, existing data clearly shows what laws we
>> now have are insufficient. Countries with wildly different (and better)
>> laws have almost zero such problems.
>>
>> When was the last mass shooting of schoolkids in Thailand?
>
> Certainly true - different strokes for different folks, I guess the
> saying goes.
>
> But no, according to the news, there has been one mass shooting in the
> history of Thailand and that was an Army Senor
> Sergeant who got upset over some sort of deal on a house he bought. He
> checked a gun(S) out of the army supply and went to town, first to a
> Buddhist Wat (temple) and shot some passerby's and then moved to a
> large shopping center and went in and shot some more. 29 killed and 58
> wounded.
>
> Of course the usual excuse made by "outsiders" for Thailand's lack of
> mass shootings is "Oh! But you have gun laws", which is certainly
> true. But way back when people "went to the movies" and conditioning
> hadn't been invented, my wife and I went to the movies and when the
> show was over we sat there to let the mob get out first before we got
> up and as the sweat stained mob crowded up the isles my wife commented
> that "look! they all have a gun!" And yes, nearly every man, as he
> walked by you could see, in his sweat stained shirt, the outline of a
> pistol shoved in the back of his belt.

If that's really true and you have few gun deaths, then I'd say that
system is working for that country. I'd say it's not working for mine.

I'm having trouble finding good comparative data on Thailand's gun death
rate. But this article makes it sound like it's a problem:
https://www.nst.com.my/world/region/2020/02/569974/thailand-has-2nd-highest-gun-death-rate

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 8:28 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 14:45:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2022 12:51 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:45:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2022 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:29:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they were required
>>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago experience with
>>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the letter of the
>>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and read it over and over until
>>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a democracy
>>>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one assumes,
>>>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will be changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How naive!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically corrupted by
>>>>>> those with huge amounts of money to spend. To treat the most currently
>>>>>> relevant example: A majority of Americans consistently says more gun
>>>>>> control is needed. Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my
>>>>>> state) actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people? Hmm. Let's see
>>>>>> who gets money from the NRA:
>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are blatantly
>>>>>> open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy campaign "donations," gun
>>>>>> manufacturers lobby for easier gun sales; the super-wealthy lobby for
>>>>>> tax breaks for the super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for
>>>>>> protection from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>>>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And Republicans
>>>>>> appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Frank, that is how a "democracy" works, and has always worked
>>>>> since the Athenian days, and undoubtedly always will.
>>>>
>>>> So you say. Yet somehow, in dozens of other democracies there is no
>>>> obscene proliferation of mass murder weapons, there are fairer tax
>>>> structures and far less income and wealth disparity, there is far better
>>>> and less expensive health car, far lower medicine costs, far higher use
>>>> of renewable energy, far less crime, far fewer gun deaths, far better
>>>> support for arts, and far greater public contentment.
>>>>
>>>> To me, that indicates there are serious problems with our current
>>>> American political system. There are also problems with a large portion
>>>> of the electorate. Imagine accepting the murder of schoolkids just to be
>>>> able to play with macho guns!
>>>>
>>>> I don't believe the problems are incurable. But many conscienceless
>>>> people would have to be removed from power, and they will do anything at
>>>> all to retain power.
>>>
>>> Your whole argument is foolish.
>>>
>>> Certainly many, perhaps all, societies are different. But essentially,
>>> if they are democracies they all function by the public voting pro or
>>> con for some idea". Every single one of them.
>>>
>>> Now, you disagree with laws in the U.S. So, do something about it.
>>> Start a movement. Get a while bunch of guys to agree with you and you
>>> can change the laws.
>>
>> :-) I assure you, John, these discussions are not my only efforts on
>> these issues.
>
> Well, if you are nose down, arse in the air, feverishly beavering
> away, why the loud cry's of anguish" Ohhhhh he's got more money then I
> do (:(
>
> After all, you went to collage; Jeff Bezos went to collage; you got a
> job; Jeff Bezos got a job; you pranced around at the front of the
> class room; Jeff Bezos recognizing the potential of the Internet and
> started a mail order book shop in his garage with his wife's help..
>
> In short, he didn't do anything that you couldn't have done. The
> difference seems to be he got up on his hind legs and did something.
>
> And now you flaunt your jealousy.

I'm not at all jealous of Bezos. My priorities were vastly different
than those of Bezos. I had a very satisfying career, a great family life
and lots of excellent friends and experiences. Money was never a great
priority for me; and yet I've now got enough that it's hard to think of
good ways to spend it.

I know, I should send some to Tom. But I prefer other charities.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 9:02 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:25:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2022 12:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:47:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2022 9:39 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 13:55:31 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>>>>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:29:22 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they were required
>>>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago experience with
>>>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the letter of the
>>>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and read it over and over until
>>>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a democracy
>>>>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one assumes,
>>>>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will be changed.
>>>>>>> How naive!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically corrupted by
>>>>>>> those with huge amounts of money to spend. To treat the most currently
>>>>>>> relevant example: A majority of Americans consistently says more gun
>>>>>>> control is needed. Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my
>>>>>>> state) actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people? Hmm. Let's see
>>>>>>> who gets money from the NRA:
>>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are blatantly
>>>>>>> open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy campaign "donations," gun
>>>>>>> manufacturers lobby for easier gun sales; the super-wealthy lobby for
>>>>>>> tax breaks for the super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for
>>>>>>> protection from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That last one is a real killer. (Ignore the NRA AR-15 guns killing school children and teachers for a moment.)
>>>>>> https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-business-congress-health-care-reform-medicare-756e3255a1cb4ab8c813151aec19b60c
>>>>>> "To do that, Congress would have to change an unusual arrangement that’s written into law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When lawmakers created Medicare’s Part D outpatient prescription drug program in 2003, they barred Medicare from negotiating prices. Republicans who controlled Congress at the time wanted insurers that administer drug plans to do the haggling. Medicare was sidelined, despite decades of experience setting prices for hospitals, doctors and nursing homes."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Seems to me the Republicans took the bribes being offered by the pharmacy companies.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Disregarding political parties is anyone naive enough to doubt that
>>>>> those who have the ability to do so will NOT attempt to influence the
>>>>> making of laws that apply to them?
>>>>
>>>> What do pharmaceuticals cost where you live? How often are school kids
>>>> gunned down there?
>>>>
>>>> Don't pretend that it's impossible to fix our problems. Few other
>>>> countries have them.
>>>
>>> A totally different country, government and society.
>>>
>>> Pharmaceuticals can be bought from a government hospital, assuming you
>>> are treated there, if a foreigner, (if a citizen then free). It cost
>>> me about 1,600 baht - about $50 a month for the 8 different medicines
>>> I take as a result of the heart problem and pacemaker.If I were to go
>>> to a private hospital I would pay 3 - 5 times that.
>>>
>>> The government hospitals get their medicines from the Medicine
>>> Directory/Board/ what ever the term is, who buy the nation's medicines
>>> by public purchase from the lowest bidders. Private hospitals? Nobody
>>> knows.
>>>
>>> But what has that to do with my statement "Disregarding political
>>> parties is anyone naive enough to doubt that those who have the
>>> ability to do so will NOT attempt to influence the making of laws that
>>> apply to them?"
>>>
>>> I believe it is a valid statement, or at least my rather casual survey
>>> of the situation in the countries I have lived in would seem to
>>> validate it.
>>>
>>> Certainly if you had the ability to influence the laws you disagree
>>> with you would "will NOT attempt to influence them".
>>
>>
>>
>> John, I have to repeatedly spell out obvious points for you!
>>
>> Your implication seemed to be that it was fine and normal for the
>> American pharmaceutical companies to exert heavy influence in favor of
>> laws allowing them to reap huge profits. Your own country of residence
>> (plus many dozens of others) indicates it is not generally considered
>> fine and normal.
>
> Your reading comprehension seems to have missed a beat here. I wrote
> (see above)
>
> "anyone naive enough to doubt that those who have the ability to do so
> will NOT attempt to influence the making of laws that apply to them?"
>
> What in the world does that have to do with whether or not "American
> pharmaceutical companies to exert heavy influence in favor of laws
> allowing them to reap huge profits"?
>
> In fact I predicted that they would.
>
> But, as they say, "Turnabout is fair play", so what justifies your
> argument that the 1st amendment should be thrown out or that the tax
> laws should be changed?

We're having a serious disconnect here. I've never argued that the first
amendment should be thrown out.

About tax laws: I've explained pretty thoroughly why I think they need
to be changed. Re-read and ask specific questions, if necessary.

Vaguely related to that: A headline in today's paper says "Pay for top
CEOs rose 17% in 2021" and "Average employee needs 186 years to equal 1
year of exec pay"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> All those points but one have been thoroughly answered in previous
>> discussions. To cut to the chase on most of them, please read up on the
>> history of the AR platform. Read about the company's objectives and main
>> intended market when it was still on the drawing board.
>>
> Ayup.... now look at the 1903 Springfield rifle, designed by the
> military as the standard military fire arm and chambered for the NEW
> More Powerful 30-06 cartridge. That is a military weapon is designed
> to be used to kill people.
>
> It was used by the U.S. Military from about 1903 until, I believe the
> last were delivered to the U.S. services in 1944 but were use buy
> various foreign countries, the French, for example until the Vietnam
> thing.
>
> Could a rifle be more a military weapon, designed to kill people? Used
> by military forces for 50 years.
>
> Why aren't you hollering and screaming about them. After all while the
> 1903 is no longer made similar type and caliber rifles are still being
> made and marketed.

I'm not complaining about that gun because that gun is legitimately
useful - some say the best - for certain types of hunting. More
important, AFAIK that gun is (almost) never used to commit mass murder.

Feel free to prove me wrong, with citations, if you can.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 10:59 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:37:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:43:44 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/29/2022 1:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/29/2022 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 8:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>>>>>>>>>> while some
>>>>>>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>>>>>>>>>> paltry 4% of
>>>>>>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker?
>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
>>>>>>>>> can usually
>>>>>>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S.
>>>>>>>>> Senate rules
>>>>>>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And
>>>>>>>>> Republicans in the
>>>>>>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And
>>>>>>>>> regarding the
>>>>>>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA:
>>>>>>>>> Even a
>>>>>>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But
>>>>>>>>> they're scammed
>>>>>>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example)
>>>>>>>>> absolutely convinced
>>>>>>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that
>>>>>>>>> machine working,
>>>>>>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>>>>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when
>>>>>>>>> you've got a big
>>>>>>>>> mansion, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who
>>>>>>>> die in car
>>>>>>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing
>>>>>>>> that masks and
>>>>>>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Write this down and memorize it:Â "Consider benefits vs.
>>>>>>> detriments." You seem to forget the concept within minutes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the
>>>>>>> benefits of bicycling. As I've often said, every study on
>>>>>>> the topic has found the life extending benefits of bicycling
>>>>>>> far outweigh its minimal risks. Do you really need the
>>>>>>> citations again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By contrast: What are the benefits of letting ordinary (or
>>>>>>> worse than ordinary) people buy guns optimized for mass
>>>>>>> shooting and combat situations? What good does it do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with the principle to consider benefits. Your
>>>>>> average USAian considers bicycles and bicyclists to be of
>>>>>> zero utility to the nation. Now what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Those that don't value bicycles don't buy one. They get no
>>>>> benefits of bicycling, but bicycling by others imposes no
>>>>> harm on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's markedly different than the effect of
>>>>> combat-optimized guns on others. Nobody gets any real
>>>>> benefit (aside from getting to play with a macho toy) but
>>>>> many people suffer huge detriments, including loss of life.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's exactly right.
>>>>
>>>> If non-firearms owners decide policy for the rest, should
>>>> non-cyclists set policy for cyclists?
>>>>
>>>> for , "play with a macho toy", read, "Oh, Mister Euro Pro
>>>> wannabe with his fancy dee-railer bike".
>>>
>>> See there Andrew, you don no nottin. See Frank adores bicycles and
>>> thus bicycles are wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, while equally Frank
>>> fears firearms and this firearms are Bad! Bad! Bad!
>>>
>>
>> The entire "benefits vs. detriments" concept is so far beyond you, John,
>> that you have to resort to cartoon mockery. And you're also failing at
>> processing data. It's not impressive.
>>
>> The U.S. has the developed world's least stringent gun control laws. It
>> has the greatest proliferation of guns. It has millions of
>> combat-optimized guns in private hands, gun designs that are either
>> heavily restricted or totally banned in other countries. And it has the
>> highest number of gun deaths and mass murders.
>>
>> And you can't grasp the correlation. Wow.
>
> But Frank, the U.S. banned "assault rifles", these horribly dangerous,
> optimized for killing, terrible things. From September 13, 1994. until
> September 13, 2004,
> So according to your logic then gun killings must have dropped. But do
> some research
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Total_Deaths_in_US_Mass_Shootings_1982-2021.jpg
> Note that these are "total gun deaths" and not the rate per.
> and read all of
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
> From the introduction "Studies have shown the ban had little effect on
> overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, and the lethality of gun
> crimes."
>
> It would appear that your theory has little, if any, validity in real
> life.

Do we really need to crunch the numbers in that graph, John? I mean, we
can take the time if you like, but can't you judge it visually? During
that time period the number of mass shootings was significantly less,
_even though_ people were still allowed to _own_ those guns.

I'll note that the evaluation opinion you quoted is far from unanimous.
There are quite a few studies that showed the ban was beneficial.

Granted, during that time, it was hard for someone who didn't already
own one to experience the wonderful advantages of an assault rifle.

Those advantages are ... what?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>>> it?
>>>
>>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>>> points are.
>>
>> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
>> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
>> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
>> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
>> more.
>
>Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
>can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
>fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
>non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)
>
But Frank, you kept going on and on about optimized for killing. I was
simply demonstrating that WOW! Here is a gun optimized for killing way
back in 1903 and used for that purpose for 50 years or more. Don't
deaths before, well say 1989 when the first "assault rifle, an AK-47,
was used to kill civilians, count?

As for weight... well most varmint rifles I used to build were heavy
but I did build several super light 6 lb. deer rifles.

As for 4 - 5 rounds a second??? All legally sold "assault rifles? in
the U.S. are "semi-automatic", thus fire one time each time the
trigger is pulled.... as are all "semi-automatic pistols.
AND, the semi automatic rifle was "invented" in 1885.

As for 50 round magazines I have no idea but certainly there are
pistols with large magazines. The Kel-Tec PMR30 has a 30 round
magazine and the Glock 17 that can have a magazine capable of carrying
33 9mm rounds and the standard Glock 18 is 9mm and carries 19 rounds.
Is 50 somehow a magic number?

If the magazine only held 49 rounds would it be O.K.?

And as for "person needs such capability"

Well, O.K. but first explain why a "person needs"a $14,000 (well
actually $13,999.99) bicycle
https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/bikes/road-bikes/triathlon-bikes/speed-concept/speed-concept-slr-9-etap/p/35756/?colorCode=red_black
or an shifter set costing $990.00 (ebay)
https://www.ebay.com/itm/323174933386

Bit, perhaps, more to the point, the U.S. banned "assault rifles" for
a 10 year period... did firearm crimes decrease?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:42:39 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/29/2022 3:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/29/2022 1:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2022 11:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B.
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank
>>>>>>>>>> KrygowskiÂ
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that
>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>> were required
>>>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>>>>>>> experience with
>>>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> letter of the
>>>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this:
>>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> read it over and over until
>>>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen
>>>>>>>> attentively,
>>>>>>>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the
>>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>>> on her husband's portfolio.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she
>>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>>> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
>>>>>> Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm
>>>>>> crime?
>>>>>
>>>>> Please don't pretend there are no NRA members committing gun
>>>>> crimes.
>>>>>
>>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>>>>> numbers are the direct result.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>>>
>>> Do you not know the history of the AR design?? Really??
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Eugene Stoner developed it as a civilian sporting rifle.
>That's false. It was designed to be sold to the U.S. military.
>
>"In 1955, Stoner completed initial design work on the revolutionary
>ArmaLite AR-10, a lightweight (7.25 lbs.) select-fire infantry rifle in
>7.62×51mm NATO caliber. The AR-10 was submitted for rifle evaluation
>trials to the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground.."
>
>It became a "sporting rifle" after gun manufacturers realized there were
>lots of Rambo wannabees.

Well, maybe. But look at all those fellows charging down the pavement
on their $10,000 bicycles. At a thundering 12 MPH.
Goodness, they got the $40 shorts and the $50 blouse and Hhooeee the
$100 shoes and I almost forgot, the $300 plastic hat.

What would one call them? TdeF wannabe?

>Well, pretend Rambo wannabees. Most would probably cry and soil
>themselves in a firefight, but they like to fantasize while they heft
>the gun and pull the trigger.

Gee, I sort of like your description... but have you been in a "fire
fight"? Are you speaking from experience? Been there, done that? Guns
banging all over the place? Bombs bursting in Air?
Or are you simply sneering at others, not knowing what you are talking
about.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 23:17:14 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/29/2022 9:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>> All those points but one have been thoroughly answered in previous
>>> discussions. To cut to the chase on most of them, please read up on the
>>> history of the AR platform. Read about the company's objectives and main
>>> intended market when it was still on the drawing board.
>>>
>> Ayup.... now look at the 1903 Springfield rifle, designed by the
>> military as the standard military fire arm and chambered for the NEW
>> More Powerful 30-06 cartridge. That is a military weapon is designed
>> to be used to kill people.
>>
>> It was used by the U.S. Military from about 1903 until, I believe the
>> last were delivered to the U.S. services in 1944 but were use buy
>> various foreign countries, the French, for example until the Vietnam
>> thing.
>>
>> Could a rifle be more a military weapon, designed to kill people? Used
>> by military forces for 50 years.
>>
>> Why aren't you hollering and screaming about them. After all while the
>> 1903 is no longer made similar type and caliber rifles are still being
>> made and marketed.
>
>I'm not complaining about that gun because that gun is legitimately
>useful - some say the best - for certain types of hunting. More
>important, AFAIK that gun is (almost) never used to commit mass murder.
>
>Feel free to prove me wrong, with citations, if you can.

Well, O.K.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfLCMfMAFhQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfLCMfMAFhQ
Both at the National matches at Camp Perry, Ohio.
Perhaps meaningless to someone who isn't a shooter but the Really Big
Time for us that do/did. Something like 4,500 participants.

As for hunting
https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/firearm-hunting/should-your-next-deer-rifle-be-an-ar-15
The proper hunting rifle is closely tied to the proper hunting
cartridge for the game you are hunting. If it is a small creature then
a light weight, high speed bullet will suffice but if it a large
creature - think Kodiak bear or lions - that really must be stopped
with almost any hit then a much larger bullet is required. Note:
"bullet" not "cartridge".
The AR type of firearms are, I believe, limited to the smaller lighter
bullet cartridges and thus "not the thing" for large and dangerious
game.
Note: There is a version of the AR-15 that fires a rimless version of
the .500 S&W Magnum - 300 gr, 2,075 ft/s, 2,868 ft·lbf
But I know nothing about it.

As for mass murder? I'm not sure but I believe that just about every
sort has been used. the first "mass shooting" I am aware of was
University of Texas tower shooting and the shooter used, a Remington
700 6-mm bolt-action hunting rifle, a .35-caliber pump rifle, the M1
carbine, a 9-mm Luger pistol, a Galesi-Brescia .25-caliber pistol, a
Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolver. The Google list
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
show just about every firearm invented as having been used:
Semi-automatic rifles (some outfitted with bump stocks), bolt-action
rifle, and revolver
Semi-automatic rifle and pistol
Semi-automatic pistols
are the first three entries.

So, the AR type is used for target shooting, it is used for hunting
and it is used for mass shootings... but so are every other type of
firearm.
(well excepting cannon, machine guns, rocket launchers, etc.)

If you care to continue to prove that 2 plus 2 are really 5 then I
suggest you read
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-threaten-us-democracy
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 23:04:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/29/2022 7:54 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:03:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2022 11:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>>>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
>>>>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
>>>>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>>>>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party can usually
>>>>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S. Senate rules
>>>>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And Republicans in the
>>>>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding the
>>>>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA: Even a
>>>>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But they're scammed
>>>>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example) absolutely convinced
>>>>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine working,
>>>>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've got a big
>>>>>>> mansion, right?
>>>>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who die in car
>>>>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing that masks and
>>>>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John B.
>>>>>
>>>>> Concerning the car deaths, there have been lots of federal rules and regulations put into affect. From speed limits to seatbelts being mandatory when in the car to cars having airbags to improving the structure of cars when crashing and rollovers. So the political parties seem to care a great deal about killing people in cars and pass lots of laws. But one political party does not care at all about guns killing people. So what. No new laws. Lets eliminate the existing laws.
>>>>
>>>> Come now. There have been "gun laws", dating back to Pilgrim days. In
>>>> the 1800's in the West there were gun laws, in fact the so called O.K.
>>>> Corral shooting was over a violation of the Town's gun laws.At least
>>>> that was the ostensible reason. New York passed the Sullivan Act in
>>>> 1911.
>>>>
>>>> But how many gun laws do you need? "Don't shoot the SOB or you go to
>>>> jail", ought to be sufficient.
>>>
>>> In some fanciful ideal world, that might be true. But there have been
>>> literally hundreds of mass shootings already this year. Shootings in
>>> schools are horribly common, and threats of them are even more common.
>>> The U.S. gun murder rate is horribly high when compared with other
>>> similar countries. Obviously, existing data clearly shows what laws we
>>> now have are insufficient. Countries with wildly different (and better)
>>> laws have almost zero such problems.
>>>
>>> When was the last mass shooting of schoolkids in Thailand?
>>
>> Certainly true - different strokes for different folks, I guess the
>> saying goes.
>>
>> But no, according to the news, there has been one mass shooting in the
>> history of Thailand and that was an Army Senor
>> Sergeant who got upset over some sort of deal on a house he bought. He
>> checked a gun(S) out of the army supply and went to town, first to a
>> Buddhist Wat (temple) and shot some passerby's and then moved to a
>> large shopping center and went in and shot some more. 29 killed and 58
>> wounded.
>>
>> Of course the usual excuse made by "outsiders" for Thailand's lack of
>> mass shootings is "Oh! But you have gun laws", which is certainly
>> true. But way back when people "went to the movies" and conditioning
>> hadn't been invented, my wife and I went to the movies and when the
>> show was over we sat there to let the mob get out first before we got
>> up and as the sweat stained mob crowded up the isles my wife commented
>> that "look! they all have a gun!" And yes, nearly every man, as he
>> walked by you could see, in his sweat stained shirt, the outline of a
>> pistol shoved in the back of his belt.
>
>If that's really true and you have few gun deaths, then I'd say that
>system is working for that country. I'd say it's not working for mine.

Well, I could go on and on, but instead I just went down and asked my
Resident Thai Expert if we could "get a gun" she said, "how much do we
want to spend" :-)

>I'm having trouble finding good comparative data on Thailand's gun death
>rate. But this article makes it sound like it's a problem:
>https://www.nst.com.my/world/region/2020/02/569974/thailand-has-2nd-highest-gun-death-rate

I think that the numbers are probably correct. although checking
homicide rates seems to present a slightly different picture with 2.1
homicides/100,000 in Malaysia and 2.6/100,000 in Thailand. and
Malaysia's population is 33,154,146 and Thailand is 70,132,847. So in
raw numbers that is 1,823.5 homicides in Thailand and 696.2 in
Malaysia.

The usual "excuse" is the insurrection in the South which has been
going on since before 1948 (I believe) with fairly frequent clashes
between the "Rebels" and the Thai Army and Police. With all the hard
feeling of both a religious and political war.

But to be honest, murders, or killings, are not exactly uncommon in
the rest of Thailand. In the last few days, from memory, a guy killed
his wife, with a knife, while riding on the train, Police shot 6 drug
smugglers, and another guy killed his girlfriend or wife, again with a
knife.

But having said that the over all crime index for Thailand is 39.35
and the U.S. is 47.81 (:-)
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/crime-rate-by-country
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:24:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:36:27 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 21:48:40 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:03:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On 5/27/2022 12:21 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:52:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> >> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> On 5/26/2022 8:20 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
> >> >> >>>> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
> >> >> >>>> live!
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Are you now saying that it isn't?
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Don't be simplistic, John. All democracies are not equal. The one I live
> >> >> >>> in has great room for improvement. Look at the data!
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But I'm not being simplistic. It is a democracy and y'all do run
> >> >> >> around telling people how wonderful "democracy".
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> But how improvement?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >How improvement indeed! Um... whatever that means...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You declined my invitation to look at data for various democracies..
> >> >> >Again, compared to most European democracies, the U.S. has more wealth
> >> >> >and income disparity, more crime, far more murders, incredibly more gun
> >> >> >deaths, more poverty, far worse health care, worse education, more
> >> >> >citizen debt, longer work weeks, fewer vacation days, far more
> >> >> >imprisonment, less general contentment, etc. All democracies are NOT
> >> >> >equal, and I see little evidence that the U.S. system is best of all.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Yes, but Frank, when I pointed out that the U.S. had more crime and
> >> >> thus likely a more lawless population then Canada you leaped to the
> >> >> defense of the U.S.
> >> >>
> >> >> And as for laying the blame for all of the U.S's ills on income
> >> >> disparity, I think you have your head in the clouds as I've lived in
> >> >> countries where the disparity between the "haves" and the "have not's"
> >> >> is far greater then the U.S. and we don't have the awful crimes that
> >> >> you flaunt.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thailand, a poor, improvised country has, currently, with the Covid,
> >> >> some 1.53% unemployment. Before Covid as low as 0.98%. And the U.S.,
> >> >> the richest country in the world, has (I read) 3.6%.
> >> >>
> >> >> The murder rate in the U.S. is 6.2/100,000, Thailand 2.6.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >On the Gini Index, Thailand has a 35.0 score. USA has 41.5. So the income equity is much better in Thailand than the USA. So your better numbers for Thailand over the USA prove that less income disparity results in better life.
> >> >https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
> >> Yes, I looked at that and then I looked at GINI and yes the numbers
> >> seem to show some sort of difference, But is it real?
> >>
> >> Not to quibble but I really can't believe that it is indicative of
> >> what I see here every day. Perhaps if you do the calculation for
> >> Bangkok or even Bangkok, Korat and Changmai (the three larger cities),
> >> but I really can't believe it applies to the entire country, as a
> >> whole. I can take you to village after village in the N.E. or South
> >> where income is far, far lower then it is in the cities.
> >>
> >> But, is relative income, or income disparity, if you would, really an
> >> indication of much of anything? After all, if I have an income of, say
> >> 1 million a year and you have an income of 100,000 there is a
> >> disparage of 100::1. Oh, WoW. Terrible! Terrible! Or is it.
> >
> >????????
> >"if I have an income of, say 1 million a year and you have an income of 100,000 there is a disparage of 100::1"
> >My mathematical abilities tell me that is a 10:1 ratio. That seems bad for the difference between the rural people and the city people. But in the USA we have Elon Musk compared to the clerk at the convenience store. In one of the many states that has the federal low minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. I suspect the income disparity is about 1,000,000,000:1. And that is why the USA has a much worse Gini Index than Thailand. Much greater overall disparity in income on average.
>
> Yup, I certainly counted wrong that time.
>
> But the basic premise remains,If you make 100,000 and I make a million
> is income disparity important? Look at Frank, he says he has quite a
> large housing lot, decent house, just bought a $30,000 auto, talks as
> though he is happily married. Is the fact that, say Jeff Boozes, has
> an income umpteen times higher then Frank's of any concern to either?
>
> Thus my argument that income, as a single factor, may well not tell
> the whole story.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

No, income disparity all by itself is not the whole story. And as you point out, comparing Jeff Bezos of Amazon to Frank does not tell everything either. It is a one to one comparison. But the Gini index for a whole country is for 330 million US population. Or 70 million Thailand population. In aggregate, it does provide maybe a big piece of the whole puzzle. Switzerland 33.1, Sweden 29.3, Finland 27.7, Norway 27.7. All these countries always make the top ten for happiest places on earth. Now I can understand why Sweden is there if all the girls are blue eyed snow skiing blondes. But all have somewhat good Gini indices indicating income, wealth, is evenly distributed. Its not all hoarded by one guy.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:34:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
> >>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
> >>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
> >>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
> >>>
> >>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party can usually
> >>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S. Senate rules
> >>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And Republicans in the
> >>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
> >>>
> >>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
> >>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >>>
> >>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding the
> >>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA: Even a
> >>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But they're scammed
> >>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example) absolutely convinced
> >>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
> >>>
> >>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine working,
> >>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
> >>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
> >>>
> >>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've got a big
> >>> mansion, right?
> >>
> >> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who die in car
> >> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing that masks and
> >> vaccinations aren't necessary.
> >
> >
> >Write this down and memorize it: "Consider benefits vs. detriments."
> >You seem to forget the concept within minutes.
> >
> >We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the benefits of
> >bicycling. As I've often said, every study on the topic has found the
> >life extending benefits of bicycling far outweigh its minimal risks. Do
> > you really need the citations again?
> >
> Ah yes, the benefits of bicycling.
>
> Like me? Broke my pelvis on a bicycle and need a cane to walk now? Or
> Tommy, busted his head and was, by his own mention, insane for two
> years?

Just two years? I'd argue with you vociferously on that.

Or the nearly 1,000 deaths a year? Or the 130,000 injured. or
> the costs of bicycle injuries and deaths from crashes typically exceed
> $23 billion in the United States each year.
> https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html
>
> Benefits? You must be joking.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:02:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:17:15 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:29:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
> >> >>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they were required
> >> >>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago experience with
> >> >>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the letter of the
> >> >>>> law closer then most poor folk.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm not saying the ultra-rich
> >> >>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are grossly faulty. And they are
> >> >>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and paying to have the laws re-written
> >> >>> in their favor.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and read it over and over until
> >> >>> you understand.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> >>
> >> >> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a democracy
> >> >> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one assumes,
> >> >> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will be changed.
> >> >
> >> >How naive!
> >> >
> >> >The American legislative processes have been systematically corrupted by
> >> >those with huge amounts of money to spend. To treat the most currently
> >> >relevant example: A majority of Americans consistently says more gun
> >> >control is needed. Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my
> >> >state) actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
> >> >
> >> >Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people? Hmm. Let's see
> >> >who gets money from the NRA:
> >> >https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >> >
> >> >That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are blatantly
> >> >open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy campaign "donations," gun
> >> >manufacturers lobby for easier gun sales; the super-wealthy lobby for
> >> >tax breaks for the super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for
> >> >protection from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
> >> >companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And Republicans
> >> >appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>
>
> >> But Frank, that is how a "democracy" works, and has always worked
> >> since the Athenian days, and undoubtedly always will.
> >> And you can argue that water runs up hill, "until the cows come home"
> >> and it won't change thing one little bit.
> >>
> >> One might ask whether, in a democracy, one should listen to Frank rave
> >> about guns.... or the approximately 100 million that own a gun.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> >But John, according to my Google research, only 4 in 10 people live in a household with access to a gun. That is 40%. I am sure you realize the democracies work by being over 50%. So the majority of Americans are NOT gun owners. How does a democracy work?
> >https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
> >https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
> >https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
> Yes, and I think I've mentioned the number in other posts. I think the
> number of gun owners is usually counted as about 30%, or 1/3 of 334
> million, or thereabouts. Your last reference says 32%
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

My comments were about democracy. Democracy usually means majority. Above 50%. Or if it is a three way vote and two choices get 30% each and one choice gets 40%, then the 40% is the winner. But as you and I agree, gun owners are about one third. 33%. So a majority do not own guns or live in a gun household. Yet the minority wins with guns. The 33% rule the 67%. Is that a democracy?

On Mon, 30 May 2022 00:23:23 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:55:03 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:34:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
>> >>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
>> >>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>> >>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>> >>>
>> >>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party can usually
>> >>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S. Senate rules
>> >>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And Republicans in the
>> >>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>> >>>
>> >>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>> >>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>> >>>
>> >>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding the
>> >>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA: Even a
>> >>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But they're scammed
>> >>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example) absolutely convinced
>> >>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>> >>>
>> >>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine working,
>> >>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>> >>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>> >>>
>> >>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've got a big
>> >>> mansion, right?
>> >>
>> >> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who die in car
>> >> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing that masks and
>> >> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>> >
>> >
>> >Write this down and memorize it: "Consider benefits vs. detriments."
>> >You seem to forget the concept within minutes.
>> >
>> >We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the benefits of
>> >bicycling. As I've often said, every study on the topic has found the
>> >life extending benefits of bicycling far outweigh its minimal risks. Do
>> > you really need the citations again?
>> >
>> Ah yes, the benefits of bicycling.
>>
>> Like me? Broke my pelvis on a bicycle and need a cane to walk now? Or
>> Tommy, busted his head and was, by his own mention, insane for two
>> years?
>
>Just two years? I'd argue with you vociferously on that.

He admits, practically brags, that for 2 years after his crash he
didn't know what he was doing. I interpreted that as "insane".

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:29:43 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:34:41 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:21:02 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:48:05 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
> >> >>>>> wrote:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
> >> >>>>> were required
> >> >>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
> >> >>>>> experience with
> >> >>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
> >> >>>>> letter of the
> >> >>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
> >> >>>> not saying the ultra-rich
> >> >>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
> >> >>>> grossly faulty. And they are
> >> >>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
> >> >>>> paying to have the laws re-written
> >> >>>> in their favor.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
> >> >>>> read it over and over until
> >> >>>> you understand.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
> >> >>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
> >> >>> on her husband's portfolio.
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't
> >> >> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
> >> >>
> >> >> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
> >> >Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm crime?
> >> Well, just like the "Black Lives Matter" thing, it is an easy target.
> >>
> >> See, them there fellows got guns! See Guns kill people! Must be them
> >> there fellows with them guns!
> >
> >Down in Texas on Tuesday an 18 year old boy with a gun murdered 19 little kids and 2 adults. He used a gun. Not too many mass shootings happen without a gun. So I would say your statement of "them there fellows with them guns" is pretty accurate. They/him murdered the children. And adults.
> >
> And he was "executed"

Yes. He was shot on site. But the Buffalo shooter a week earlier only killed 10 (blacks) and he was not executed. He is in court/jail now. The Las Vegas murderer was killed. The Orlando nightclub killer was killed. But the El Paso Walmart killer is alive. Parkland Florida high school still alive. Boulder Colorado supermarket still alive. It varies on whether the killer is killed on site. I'm sure there are good reasons why some are killed and others are not.

>
> And, no, not many mass shootings happen without a gun. But, is it the
> fact that 22 people were killed or that a gun was used that is so
> terrifying?.
>
> If it is numbers then Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, 19 of whom
> were children, and injured more than 680 others. Using fertilizer and
> diesel fuel. The Boston Marathon... diesel and fertilizer again.
> Killing three people and injuring hundreds of others, 264 civilians
> were treated at 27 local hospitals, and 17 who lost limbs
>
> So the fertilizer scores 171 deaths and nearly 1,000 injuries and guns
> score 22 killed, no injured.
>
> Shouldn't fertilized be controlled?

I would argue the number killed is the most important part. Which is why guns are focused upon so much. 20,000 are murdered by guns each year in the USA. And 24,000 gun suicides each year. All the bombings combined do not even equal a small fraction of the gun killings each year. Look back at the seatbelt and airbag laws. Lots of people were dying each year in car crashes. So safety measures were put in place to reduce the total deaths number down.

As for why the type of gun, the AR-15 assault weapon, is focused upon. Because it seems to be the weapon of choice for the numerous mass shootings that occur. And it seems to me we have more and more mass shootings each year. Its a minor part of the total this year. But in ten years from now it may very well be half the total murders each year. Nip it in the bud. While its still a small problem.

As for regulating diesel and fertilizer. Frank has made the benefits and detriments argument before. If we eliminated diesel and fertilizer from the world, we would likely have billions starving to death due to lower crop yields and the inability to have diesel in the tractors used on farms and diesel used in the trucks to transport the food.

Another analogy. The hydrogen bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. In total they killed lots. But much less than the totals killed in Tokyo or other bombings throughout Germany with regular bombs. Yet today we are more concerned with nuclear or hydrogen bombs than regular bombs. So how they are killed is important too.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 00:29:04 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:02:46 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:17:15 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:29:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>> >> >>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they were required
>> >> >>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago experience with
>> >> >>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the letter of the
>> >> >>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm not saying the ultra-rich
>> >> >>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are grossly faulty. And they are
>> >> >>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and paying to have the laws re-written
>> >> >>> in their favor.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and read it over and over until
>> >> >>> you understand.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a democracy
>> >> >> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one assumes,
>> >> >> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will be changed.
>> >> >
>> >> >How naive!
>> >> >
>> >> >The American legislative processes have been systematically corrupted by
>> >> >those with huge amounts of money to spend. To treat the most currently
>> >> >relevant example: A majority of Americans consistently says more gun
>> >> >control is needed. Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my
>> >> >state) actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people? Hmm. Let's see
>> >> >who gets money from the NRA:
>> >> >https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>> >> >
>> >> >That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are blatantly
>> >> >open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy campaign "donations," gun
>> >> >manufacturers lobby for easier gun sales; the super-wealthy lobby for
>> >> >tax breaks for the super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for
>> >> >protection from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>> >> >companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And Republicans
>> >> >appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>>
>>
>> >> But Frank, that is how a "democracy" works, and has always worked
>> >> since the Athenian days, and undoubtedly always will.
>> >> And you can argue that water runs up hill, "until the cows come home"
>> >> and it won't change thing one little bit.
>> >>
>> >> One might ask whether, in a democracy, one should listen to Frank rave
>> >> about guns.... or the approximately 100 million that own a gun.
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> >But John, according to my Google research, only 4 in 10 people live in a household with access to a gun. That is 40%. I am sure you realize the democracies work by being over 50%. So the majority of Americans are NOT gun owners. How does a democracy work?
>> >https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>> >https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
>> >https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx
>> Yes, and I think I've mentioned the number in other posts. I think the
>> number of gun owners is usually counted as about 30%, or 1/3 of 334
>> million, or thereabouts. Your last reference says 32%
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>My comments were about democracy. Democracy usually means majority. Above 50%. Or if it is a three way vote and two choices get 30% each and one choice gets 40%, then the 40% is the winner. But as you and I agree, gun owners are about one third. 33%. So a majority do not own guns or live in a gun household. Yet the minority wins with guns. The 33% rule the 67%. Is that a democracy?

Well, in American you are wrong, as the U.S. doesn't have a pure
democratic system. I believe it is a "democratically elected
republic", in other words you elect the people who will then rule you
for the period for which they have been elected.

So, you and two other guys hold an election and two of you get
together and get to pick your representative who then gets an all
expense paid tour of Washington where he is one of 100, or 1 of 435.
So... your vote is really worth 1/3rd of either 100 or 1/3 of 435 so
would it be correct to say 1 decision divided by (lets say)100 and
that figure then divided by 3, which is your very own portion of the
democratic system (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:43:56 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >> >>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >> >>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
> >> >>>>>> were required
> >> >>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
> >> >>>>>> experience with
> >> >>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
> >> >>>>>> letter of the
> >> >>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
> >> >>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
> >> >>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
> >> >>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
> >> >>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
> >> >>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
> >> >>>>> in their favor.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
> >> >>>>> read it over and over until
> >> >>>>> you understand.
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
> >> >>>> democracy
> >> >>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
> >> >>>> assumes,
> >> >>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
> >> >>>> be changed.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> How naive!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
> >> >>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
> >> >>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
> >> >>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
> >> >>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
> >> >>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
> >> >>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
> >> >>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
> >> >>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
> >> >>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
> >> >>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
> >> >>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
> >> >>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
> >> >>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
> >> >>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you decry and
> >> >> moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968, 1986 extensions.
> >> >>
> >> >> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in the same way
> >> >> that people with outstanding warrants get new driver's licenses and new
> >> >> charge cards. That's like advocating 'mental health services'; money is
> >> >> spent, nothing happens after that.
> >> >
> >> >You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is imperfect, so
> >> >absolutely nothing should be done." By that logic, we should repeal laws
> >> >making it illegal to steal from bike shops; because obviously, people
> >> >steal from bike shops despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
> >> >
> >> >If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move would be to
> >> >improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect that a person with a
> >> >background of deadly assault and currently under multiple restraining
> >> >orders should be able to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge
> >> >arises. That's absolutely nuts.
> >> >
> >> >> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They have less cash
> >> >> to throw around with today's membership (newer firearms organizations
> >> >> are growing rapidly. NRA is not).
> >> >
> >> >The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant to me. And
> >> >judging by the behavior of the politicians who received them, the totals
> >> >are disgustingly effective.
> >> >
> >> >> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
> >> >> rights, and only that.
> >> >
> >> >That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not carved into
> >> >Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted much, much differently.
> >> >Until the NRA-backed turn to national insanity, there was no general
> >> >policy claiming any nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized
> >> >for mass killing.
> >>
> >> You keep harping on that subject, "firearms optimized for mass
> >> killing".
> >>
> >> But, do you know what you are talking about?
> >>
> >> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
> >> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
> >> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
> >> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
> >> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
> >> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
> >> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
> >> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
> >
> >Tubular magazine. One of the first. Along with the Spencer. With the Henry it had the tubular magazine under the barrel. With the Spencer it had the magazine tube inside the stock. Spencer held 7. To load them, you had to open the tubular magazine and insert one bullet at a time into the magazine.. Drop them down in the tube. Somewhat slow. I have two 22 caliber guns at my house and both have tubular magazines. It takes a little while to load them.
> >
> >One very important point I should make. The magazine on the Henry and the Spencer, were attached to the gun. They were NOT separate magazines. You could not just load a whole new fully loaded magazine into the gun. You had to reload the attached, included magazine on the gun itself. Having a detached magazine makes the reloading much much much faster. I do not think your bringing up the Henry magazine is very practical for your argument.
> >
> Well, yes. but is that really material? Oh! I can reload so quickly.
> Perhaps yes and perhaps no. But it certainly is a subject that the
> anti gunners (for want of a better name) go on about.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 10:14:52 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/28/2022 12:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B.
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
> >>>>>> were required
> >>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
> >>>>>> experience with
> >>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
> >>>>>> letter of the
> >>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
> >>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
> >>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
> >>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
> >>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
> >>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
> >>>>> in their favor.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
> >>>>> read it over and over until
> >>>>> you understand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
> >>>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
> >>>> on her husband's portfolio.
> >>>
> >>> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't
> >>> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >>
> >>
> >> And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
> >> Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm crime?
> >
> > Please don't pretend there are no NRA members committing gun
> > crimes.
> >
> > But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
> > combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
> > mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
> > numbers are the direct result.
> >
> >
>
> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Not really sure what is in disagreement here. The USA, and NATO, use 5.56x45mm NATO rounds. Which is almost sort of identical to .223 Remington cartridges. There is a difference in rifling twists and pressures so they are sort of not quite interchangeable. But they are the same bullet, sort of.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Remington#.223_Remington_vs._5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

What is being argued here?

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 10:25:52 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 2:59 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/28/2022 1:29 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2022 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
> >>>> while some
> >>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
> >>>> paltry 4% of
> >>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
> >>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
> >>>
> >>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
> >>> can usually stop most legislation to which it strongly
> >>> objects. U.S. Senate rules are more than usually restrictive
> >>> that way. And Republicans in the Senate routinely stop any
> >>> chance of enhanced gun control.
> >>>
> >>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
> >>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding
> >>> the relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to
> >>> NRA: Even a majority of _those_ want more restrictions on
> >>> guns. But they're scammed by the NRA's crooked top dogs who
> >>> (for example) absolutely convinced them that Obama was going
> >>> to take all their guns away.
> >>>
> >>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine
> >>> working, and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
> >>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've
> >>> got a big mansion, right?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> To scale that-
> >>
> >> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-hospital-assn/lobbying?id=D000000116
> >>
> >>
> >> and those guys are not even 'big' players.
> >
> > Yep. Corporate money in politics causes tons of problems. We
> > could switch the discussion to health care, but I'd prefer
> > to deal with one issue at a time, rather than follow every
> > deflection.
> >
> >
>
> Among the lobby racket players, NRA is chump change.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Money wise, yes. But they purportedly "speak" for a large number of people. And total number of votes, people, is important in so called democracies.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 00:21:02 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 10:24:37 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 3:36:27 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 21:48:40 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 8:05:19 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:03:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On 5/27/2022 12:21 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:52:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> On 5/26/2022 8:20 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> But Frank, you live in a democracy... and the U.S. runs about, all
>> >> >> >>>> over the world, telling people that a "democracy" is the only way to
>> >> >> >>>> live!
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> Are you now saying that it isn't?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> Don't be simplistic, John. All democracies are not equal. The one I live
>> >> >> >>> in has great room for improvement. Look at the data!
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But I'm not being simplistic. It is a democracy and y'all do run
>> >> >> >> around telling people how wonderful "democracy".
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> But how improvement?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >How improvement indeed! Um... whatever that means...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >You declined my invitation to look at data for various democracies.
>> >> >> >Again, compared to most European democracies, the U.S. has more wealth
>> >> >> >and income disparity, more crime, far more murders, incredibly more gun
>> >> >> >deaths, more poverty, far worse health care, worse education, more
>> >> >> >citizen debt, longer work weeks, fewer vacation days, far more
>> >> >> >imprisonment, less general contentment, etc. All democracies are NOT
>> >> >> >equal, and I see little evidence that the U.S. system is best of all.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Yes, but Frank, when I pointed out that the U.S. had more crime and
>> >> >> thus likely a more lawless population then Canada you leaped to the
>> >> >> defense of the U.S.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> And as for laying the blame for all of the U.S's ills on income
>> >> >> disparity, I think you have your head in the clouds as I've lived in
>> >> >> countries where the disparity between the "haves" and the "have not's"
>> >> >> is far greater then the U.S. and we don't have the awful crimes that
>> >> >> you flaunt.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thailand, a poor, improvised country has, currently, with the Covid,
>> >> >> some 1.53% unemployment. Before Covid as low as 0.98%. And the U.S.,
>> >> >> the richest country in the world, has (I read) 3.6%.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The murder rate in the U.S. is 6.2/100,000, Thailand 2.6.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >On the Gini Index, Thailand has a 35.0 score. USA has 41.5. So the income equity is much better in Thailand than the USA. So your better numbers for Thailand over the USA prove that less income disparity results in better life.
>> >> >https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.POV.GINI
>> >> Yes, I looked at that and then I looked at GINI and yes the numbers
>> >> seem to show some sort of difference, But is it real?
>> >>
>> >> Not to quibble but I really can't believe that it is indicative of
>> >> what I see here every day. Perhaps if you do the calculation for
>> >> Bangkok or even Bangkok, Korat and Changmai (the three larger cities),
>> >> but I really can't believe it applies to the entire country, as a
>> >> whole. I can take you to village after village in the N.E. or South
>> >> where income is far, far lower then it is in the cities.
>> >>
>> >> But, is relative income, or income disparity, if you would, really an
>> >> indication of much of anything? After all, if I have an income of, say
>> >> 1 million a year and you have an income of 100,000 there is a
>> >> disparage of 100::1. Oh, WoW. Terrible! Terrible! Or is it.
>> >
>> >????????
>> >"if I have an income of, say 1 million a year and you have an income of 100,000 there is a disparage of 100::1"
>> >My mathematical abilities tell me that is a 10:1 ratio. That seems bad for the difference between the rural people and the city people. But in the USA we have Elon Musk compared to the clerk at the convenience store. In one of the many states that has the federal low minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. I suspect the income disparity is about 1,000,000,000:1. And that is why the USA has a much worse Gini Index than Thailand. Much greater overall disparity in income on average.
>>
>> Yup, I certainly counted wrong that time.
>>
>> But the basic premise remains,If you make 100,000 and I make a million
>> is income disparity important? Look at Frank, he says he has quite a
>> large housing lot, decent house, just bought a $30,000 auto, talks as
>> though he is happily married. Is the fact that, say Jeff Boozes, has
>> an income umpteen times higher then Frank's of any concern to either?
>>
>> Thus my argument that income, as a single factor, may well not tell
>> the whole story.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>No, income disparity all by itself is not the whole story. And as you point out, comparing Jeff Bezos of Amazon to Frank does not tell everything either. It is a one to one comparison. But the Gini index for a whole country is for 330 million US population. Or 70 million Thailand population. In aggregate, it does provide maybe a big piece of the whole puzzle. Switzerland 33.1, Sweden 29.3, Finland 27.7, Norway 27.7. All these countries always make the top ten for happiest places on earth. Now I can understand why Sweden is there if all the girls are blue eyed snow skiing blondes. But all have somewhat good Gini indices indicating income, wealth, is evenly distributed. Its not all hoarded by one guy.

Well, I agree.... well, sort of. But in America (the free and the
brave) I read that 812 out of every 1,000 people have a car. In Sweden
the number seems to be 473/1000 and in Denmark only 455.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

Can you even imagine living in a country where less then half have a
car? Talk about "income disparity"? Auto disparity would be even
worse!

Good Lord! You'd might have to walk to work (:-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 10:39:19 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 4:46 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:03:28 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2022 1:11 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>> ... the point is, if you don't
> >>> make much then you go without. Save your money and pretty soon you
> >>> have got some.
> >>>
> >>> For example, I read that 95% of the U.S. population owns, or has
> >>> access to, an automobile. and the U.S. that is *about* 317,952,110
> >>> people. And the U.S. Census has it that 805,722 ride a bicycle to
> >>> work. So if you are po folk don't buy a car, but a bicycle.
> >> Since you're moving the conversation a little closer to the purported
> >> focus of this discussion group:
> >>
> >> I was a bicycle commuter for decades, using my bike at least
> >> occasionally to get to four different jobs over the years. For several
> >> years, I rode almost daily to one of those jobs.
> >>
> >> But in America very few people can do that. The main reason is that
> >> America has largely been designed around the automobile. Ever since the
> >> 1920s the trend has been to lower and lower densities, requiring longer
> >> and longer travel distances. The average commute time, one way, by car,
> >> is close to half an hour. By bike it would probably be 90 minutes or
> >> more. Few can afford to spend that time, especially if they have
> >> obligations like kids to take care of.
> >>
> >> In most of the country, buses are also impractical, again because of low
> >> density sprawl. For a specific example: I was for a time attending
> >> rehearsals for a musical production. Those rehearsals were in a small
> >> town perhaps 7 miles from me. There was absolutely no bus service
> >> running that route back then. There is now, but last I looked it was
> >> only a few times per day. I'd have to literally devote most of a day to
> >> bus travel to and from a 90 minute rehearsal.
> >
> > Agree agree agree. I used to live in Des Moines, Iowa. Somewhat larger metropolitan area. About half million total people in the city area. They had a good bus system. $2 per ticket. But the scheduling of routes did not make it easy to get many places. Especially for impromptu appointments. An example: dental visit. I had to check and coordinate about three different bus schedules to figure out when to schedule the appointment. 9 AM for my example. That meant catching the bus near my house at 8 AM. 3/4 mile walk from my house. Taking the bus downtown, getting off and catching a different bus at about 8:35. Get to my dentist on time. 20 minutes later get out of my dental appointment. Wait an hour for the next bus to come by the dental office. Different route from the one that took me to the office. Take it to a big mall. Wander around the big mall for about 4 hours with the old retired people who go to malls to walk for exercise. Catch a bus at about 2 PM to ta
> ke me down the hill to my next bus stop. Get off and scamper across a very busy 4 lane road. Catch my bus at 2:30 to take me near home. Get off and walk 3/4 mile home. Get home about 3 PM. So for a 20 minute dental appointment, it took about 7-8 hours. Not too efficient. Bus routes are setup to handle the morning commute to work and the evening commute home from work. Good luck trying to use the buses between the primetime routes.
> >
> > In case anyone is wondering, my dental office is about 12 miles from home. In warm months I did ride my bike there. Trails most of the way. But in the winter when its freezing and snow and ice, bus is better.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> This is reality for most Americans. For a poor person, it means that if
> >> they can't afford some sort of car, they can't get a job.
> >
> > Bus routes in big cities are setup to handle the 8 to 5 working hours. Monday to Friday. As long as you work those hours, and only those hours, then the bus system works great. But if you worked 5 to 2 or 10 to 7, nope. For the 5 to 2 shift, you would be a couple hours late to work and have to wait around at the bus stop for a couple hours after work. And for the 10 to 7 shift, you would be a couple hours early to work everyday and you would have to walk home every night. And forget about working the weekends. Very few routes run on the weekend.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> That would be
> >> true even if they were a skilled and dedicated cyclist. And of course,
> >> cars are expensive to operate and maintain.
> >>
> >> Be wary of simplistic solutions.
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
>
> If I understand you it's annoyingly dysfunctional and runs a
> deficit besides. Perfect example of a government program!
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

No. I believe the metropolitan bus system is government funded. They do not get all their money from selling bus tickets. It is less than optimal if you do not fit their stereotype rider. Mon-Fri. Go to work at 8, leave work at 5. If you have to use the bus system at odd times during the day or on weekends and go to out of the way places in town, then it is a challenge to use the bus to get there. A good analogy. For riding the Tour de France, the pure road racing bike is best. A cyclocross or mountain bike would not be ideal. They are still bikes and will get you from the Prologue to the Champs-Elysees. But you may find it hard to meet the time cut off each day. And sometimes that is how you feel when using the bus. It doesn't run exactly when you want it to run and doesn't take you exactly where you want to go. But with some/lot effort, you can make it work. And I was glad it was available. That was government spending I supported.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 10:42:09 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 5:02 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2022 10:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I've bitched about the payroll tax for over fifty years. Join me. But
> >>> that tax will only go up, necessarily, (although never enough to fund
> >>> SS/Medicare).
> >> Increase the _real_ tax in the mega-rich and on the largest, most
> >> profitable corporations. Then compensate by lowering the FIT on less
> >> wealthy individuals.
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > One very simple and obvious fix to the payroll taxes Andy is complaining about is to increase the amount of pay that the payroll tax applies to. $147,000 is the limit for 2022. So all of the employees earning W-2 wages above $147K do not pay any payroll taxes on their wages above $147K. Joe makes $400K so he does not pay any payroll tax on $253K of his salary. All 435 House and 11 Senate members get $174K salary. So they do not pay any payroll taxes on $27K. Payroll taxes are 15.3% of salary. Split between employer and employee. So 535 Legislatures times $27K times 15.3% equals $2,210,085 extra money to fund Social Security and Medicare. Maybe that is just too simple. Andy, would this extra $2.2 million paid into FICA cover your shop's portion?
> >
>
> I'm not sure you're wrong about that.
>
> As I understand it, the salary cap relates to the benefits
> cap so raising one would open a question about the other.
> But raising benefits at the top end is considered impolitic
> so that's been a standoff for years.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

I agree with you. It is kind of difficult to argue for taxing all income and then limiting the amount of Social Security you can receive on the other end. But politicians are extremely hypocritical on so many other things that I doubt they would even bat an eye on this minor one.

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 11:18:20 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 10:17 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
> >>>>>>>> were required
> >>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
> >>>>>>>> experience with
> >>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
> >>>>>>>> letter of the
> >>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
> >>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
> >>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
> >>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
> >>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
> >>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
> >>>>>>> in their favor.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
> >>>>>>> read it over and over until
> >>>>>>> you understand.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
> >>>>>> democracy
> >>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
> >>>>>> assumes,
> >>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
> >>>>>> be changed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How naive!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
> >>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
> >>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
> >>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
> >>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
> >>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
> >>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
> >>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
> >>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
> >>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
> >>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
> >>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
> >>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
> >>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
> >>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you decry and
> >>>> moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968, 1986 extensions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in the same way
> >>>> that people with outstanding warrants get new driver's licenses and new
> >>>> charge cards. That's like advocating 'mental health services'; money is
> >>>> spent, nothing happens after that.
> >>>
> >>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is imperfect, so
> >>> absolutely nothing should be done." By that logic, we should repeal laws
> >>> making it illegal to steal from bike shops; because obviously, people
> >>> steal from bike shops despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
> >>>
> >>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move would be to
> >>> improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect that a person with a
> >>> background of deadly assault and currently under multiple restraining
> >>> orders should be able to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge
> >>> arises. That's absolutely nuts.
> >>>
> >>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They have less cash
> >>>> to throw around with today's membership (newer firearms organizations
> >>>> are growing rapidly. NRA is not).
> >>>
> >>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant to me. And
> >>> judging by the behavior of the politicians who received them, the totals
> >>> are disgustingly effective.
> >>>
> >>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
> >>>> rights, and only that.
> >>>
> >>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not carved into
> >>> Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted much, much differently.
> >>> Until the NRA-backed turn to national insanity, there was no general
> >>> policy claiming any nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized
> >>> for mass killing.
> >>
> >> You keep harping on that subject, "firearms optimized for mass
> >> killing".
> >>
> >> But, do you know what you are talking about?
> >>
> >> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
> >> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
> >> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
> >> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
> >> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
> >> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
> >> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
> >> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
> >
> > Tubular magazine. One of the first. Along with the Spencer. With the Henry it had the tubular magazine under the barrel. With the Spencer it had the magazine tube inside the stock. Spencer held 7. To load them, you had to open the tubular magazine and insert one bullet at a time into the magazine. Drop them down in the tube. Somewhat slow. I have two 22 caliber guns at my house and both have tubular magazines. It takes a little while to load them.
> >
> > One very important point I should make. The magazine on the Henry and the Spencer, were attached to the gun. They were NOT separate magazines. You could not just load a whole new fully loaded magazine into the gun. You had to reload the attached, included magazine on the gun itself. Having a detached magazine makes the reloading much much much faster. I do not think your bringing up the Henry magazine is very practical for your argument.
> >
> >
> >
> >> So all the man killer things you shout about include options that are
> >> two hundred years old and in one instance, perhaps, 400 years old.
> >>
> >> So, if they use centuries old technology can you say "optimized"?
> >>
> >> But supposing that you are correct that short barrel, semi-automatic,
> >> pistol grip, etc., is optimized for killing and thus, reading between
> >> the lines here, are terrible, terrible.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine
> > This is the M4 carbine used by the US military. Its a sort of scaled down M16. M16 had longer barrel and the built in handle on top. Please note the short barrel, semi-automatic (and full automatic or 3 round burst), pistol grip, high capacity magazine (30 rounds). I am pretty dog gone certain the US military chose this weapon for its optimized killing. The short barrel makes killing inside buildings better because you can point the gun/barrel at your target, people, quicker. And pull the trigger and shoot them faster. Before they shoot you.
> >
> > Do you think the Texas murderer who killed the 19 kids and 2 adults used this feature on his gun? To kill the kids faster? Before the kids could shoot him?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Then why do you issue them, in the form of "pistols" to police forces.
> >> Are the police in the business of "man killing"?
> >>
> >> Oh yes... according to FBI records, rifles are used, in 2019, in 1.9%
> >> of all murders and, just by the way, knives which you discount, were
> >> used in 10.5% and hands and feet in 4.3%.
> >
> > https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
> > Total murders in 2019 13,927
> > Total firearms 10,258
> > Handguns 6,368
> > Rifles 364
> > Shotguns 200
> > Other guns 45
> > Firearms, type not stated 3,281
> > Knives 1,476
> > Blunt objects 397
> > Hands feet 600
> > Other weapons or weapon not stated 840
> > and numerous other ways to kill people make out the rest. all small numbers, sort of.
> >
> > John, I'll believe your percentages of 1.9% and 10.5% and 4.3%. But what strikes me about the above totals from the FBI is the 3,281 Firearms, type not stated and the 840 Other weapons. How many of those were the AR-15 rifles that seem to be so popular with mass murderers? I do not know why those categories are so large. Isn't the type of weapon used to commit a murder somewhat obvious? But for some reason we have 4,121 of the 13,927 murders in 2019 that do not state the weapon in the cause of the murder. Its 29.6% of the total. If just half of those 4,121 unclassified are the AR-15 rifle, then your 1.9% gets thrown into the sh-thole.
> >
> > But I will throw you a bone. The infamous AR-15 rifle seems to be mainly used in mass killings. Many people murdered at once in one location or episode. The one murder on the street is usually a pistol. Andy loves to talk about all the murders in Chicago. All those are one or two people being murdered. So almost certainly with pistols. Pistols are easier to conceal and faster to get off one or two shots. Quick murders. Whereas the AR-15 rifle is big and long. And easily seen. And since mass murderers want to be seen and noticed, they choose a gun that is obvious, not concealed. And its really good at killing people fast.
> >
> > And the individual killings are far more prevalent in the US than the mass murders. There are many, many, many individual killings for every one mass killing. So the totals are predominantly of the individual killings. Even though the mass killings kill lots at once, their totals killed cannot compare to all the individual killings. Fortunately, I guess.
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> So, reality is that your man killing assault rifles, that you so fear,
> >> were used in far, far, fewer murders then even knives and hands and
> >> feet.
> >>
> >> Or perhaps another way to put it is, "You really don't know what you
> >> are talking about".
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
>
> If you want to obsess on features, Charles Whitman killed
> 14, wounded 31 mostly[1] with a bolt-action .30 cal.
>
> [1]he stabbed his wife and mother to death first.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 30 May 2022 01:17:29 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 1:43:56 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> >> >>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>> >> >>>>>> were required
>> >> >>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>> >> >>>>>> experience with
>> >> >>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>> >> >>>>>> letter of the
>> >> >>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>> >> >>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>> >> >>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>> >> >>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>> >> >>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>> >> >>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>> >> >>>>> in their favor.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>> >> >>>>> read it over and over until
>> >> >>>>> you understand.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
>> >> >>>> democracy
>> >> >>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
>> >> >>>> assumes,
>> >> >>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>> >> >>>> be changed.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> How naive!
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
>> >> >>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
>> >> >>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
>> >> >>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
>> >> >>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
>> >> >>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
>> >> >>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
>> >> >>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
>> >> >>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
>> >> >>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
>> >> >>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
>> >> >>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
>> >> >>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>> >> >>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
>> >> >>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you decry and
>> >> >> moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968, 1986 extensions.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in the same way
>> >> >> that people with outstanding warrants get new driver's licenses and new
>> >> >> charge cards. That's like advocating 'mental health services'; money is
>> >> >> spent, nothing happens after that.
>> >> >
>> >> >You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is imperfect, so
>> >> >absolutely nothing should be done." By that logic, we should repeal laws
>> >> >making it illegal to steal from bike shops; because obviously, people
>> >> >steal from bike shops despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
>> >> >
>> >> >If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move would be to
>> >> >improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect that a person with a
>> >> >background of deadly assault and currently under multiple restraining
>> >> >orders should be able to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge
>> >> >arises. That's absolutely nuts.
>> >> >
>> >> >> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They have less cash
>> >> >> to throw around with today's membership (newer firearms organizations
>> >> >> are growing rapidly. NRA is not).
>> >> >
>> >> >The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant to me. And
>> >> >judging by the behavior of the politicians who received them, the totals
>> >> >are disgustingly effective.
>> >> >
>> >> >> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
>> >> >> rights, and only that.
>> >> >
>> >> >That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not carved into
>> >> >Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted much, much differently.
>> >> >Until the NRA-backed turn to national insanity, there was no general
>> >> >policy claiming any nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized
>> >> >for mass killing.
>> >>
>> >> You keep harping on that subject, "firearms optimized for mass
>> >> killing".
>> >>
>> >> But, do you know what you are talking about?
>> >>
>> >> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>> >> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>> >> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>> >> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>> >> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>> >> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>> >> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>> >> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>> >
>> >Tubular magazine. One of the first. Along with the Spencer. With the Henry it had the tubular magazine under the barrel. With the Spencer it had the magazine tube inside the stock. Spencer held 7. To load them, you had to open the tubular magazine and insert one bullet at a time into the magazine. Drop them down in the tube. Somewhat slow. I have two 22 caliber guns at my house and both have tubular magazines. It takes a little while to load them.
>> >
>> >One very important point I should make. The magazine on the Henry and the Spencer, were attached to the gun. They were NOT separate magazines. You could not just load a whole new fully loaded magazine into the gun. You had to reload the attached, included magazine on the gun itself. Having a detached magazine makes the reloading much much much faster. I do not think your bringing up the Henry magazine is very practical for your argument.
>> >
>> Well, yes. but is that really material? Oh! I can reload so quickly.
>> Perhaps yes and perhaps no. But it certainly is a subject that the
>> anti gunners (for want of a better name) go on about.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting
>"he fired more than 1,000 bullets, killing 60 people[a] and wounding 411"
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Las_Vegas_shooting#Weaponry
>"Twenty-four firearms, a large quantity of ammunition, and numerous high-capacity magazines capable of holding up to 100 rounds apiece were found in the suite."
>
>Seems to me he reloaded his guns with magazines many times during the shooting.
>
>>
>> But more to the point, perhaps, is that looking at the Wikki it seems
>> that "mass shootings", 31 cases, 1948 - 2022, and "rampage shooting",
>> 100 cases 1863 - 2021, are fairly common in the U.S. and in most of
>> the cases the shooter is killed by the police while in Thailand I
>> believe there has been only one in the 50 years I've lived here.
>>
>> While admittedly it is hard to compare, Thailand has about 1/5th the
>> population of the U.S., if one goes on that basis then Thailand would
>> have had something like 26 cases of mass shooting, but have had only
>> 1.
>>
>> The anti gunners will cry, "Gun Laws! Gun Laws!" but the truth is that
>> guns are readily available here. Way back when, we were living sort of
>> "out in the country" and I mentioned "maybe a gun would be good" and
>> my wife "went to town" and came back with a 12 gauge pistol. No fuss
>> at all. And reading the news one on one shootings are common.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_guns_per_capita_by_country
>USA has 120.5 guns per 100 people.
>Thailand has 15.1 guns per 100 people.
>
>I would conclude guns are not readily available in Thailand. Compared to the USA anyway. Compared to Bangladesh, Vietnam, Malaysia, yes they are readily available in Thailand.

On 5/29/2022 9:06 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/29/2022 12:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> If you want to obsess on features, AS with most issues,
>> there's data available. We could discuss it. But that's
>> getting pretty far into the weeds even for this group.
>> killed 14, wounded 31 mostly[1] with a bolt-action .30 cal.
>>
>
> I remember that. Several relevant facts:
>
> He was a highly trained, excellent marksman. And he was
> shooting at long distances from a highly elevated position.
> A typical gun nut would not have the skill to do what he did.
>
> And AFAIK, AR-style guns were not sold to the public back
> then. If they were, he probably would have done the same
> amount of harm in less than five minutes, by just walking
> into a crowded room and blasting away. No real skill
> necessary; the gun design makes it easy. It's optimized for
> rapid firing at relatively close targets.
>

Here is a civilian AR-15 sold in 1966 (same year as
Whitman's debacle) :

https://www.gunsamerica.com/932348269/COLT-AR-15-SP1-MFG-1966-223.htm

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

On 5/29/2022 9:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/29/2022 4:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/29/2022 2:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2022 2:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/29/2022 1:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/29/2022 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 8:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million
>>>>>>>>>> members
>>>>>>>>>> while some
>>>>>>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So
>>>>>>>>>> is a
>>>>>>>>>> paltry 4% of
>>>>>>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker?
>>>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one
>>>>>>>>> party
>>>>>>>>> can usually
>>>>>>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects.
>>>>>>>>> U.S.
>>>>>>>>> Senate rules
>>>>>>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And
>>>>>>>>> Republicans in the
>>>>>>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun
>>>>>>>>> control.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And
>>>>>>>>> regarding the
>>>>>>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to
>>>>>>>>> NRA:
>>>>>>>>> Even a
>>>>>>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns.
>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>> they're scammed
>>>>>>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example)
>>>>>>>>> absolutely convinced
>>>>>>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that
>>>>>>>>> machine working,
>>>>>>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>>>>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when
>>>>>>>>> you've got a big
>>>>>>>>> mansion, right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> die in car
>>>>>>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing
>>>>>>>> that masks and
>>>>>>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Write this down and memorize it: "Consider
>>>>>>> benefits
>>>>>>> vs.
>>>>>>> detriments." You seem to forget the concept within
>>>>>>> minutes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the
>>>>>>> benefits of bicycling. As I've often said, every
>>>>>>> study on
>>>>>>> the topic has found the life extending benefits of
>>>>>>> bicycling
>>>>>>> far outweigh its minimal risks. Do you
>>>>>>> really need the
>>>>>>> citations again?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> By contrast: What are the benefits of letting
>>>>>>> ordinary (or
>>>>>>> worse than ordinary) people buy guns optimized for mass
>>>>>>> shooting and combat situations? What good does it do?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with the principle to consider benefits. Your
>>>>>> average USAian considers bicycles and bicyclists to be of
>>>>>> zero utility to the nation. Now what?
>>>>>
>>>>> Those that don't value bicycles don't buy one. They get no
>>>>> benefits of bicycling, but bicycling by others imposes no
>>>>> harm on them.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's markedly different than the effect of
>>>>> combat-optimized guns on others. Nobody gets any real
>>>>> benefit (aside from getting to play with a macho toy) but
>>>>> many people suffer huge detriments, including loss of
>>>>> life.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that's exactly right.
>>>>
>>>> If non-firearms owners decide policy for the rest, should
>>>> non-cyclists set policy for cyclists?
>>>>
>>>> for , "play with a macho toy", read, "Oh, Mister Euro Pro
>>>> wannabe with his fancy dee-railer bike".
>>>
>>> I'm surprised that you don't realize that it's almost
>>> entirely non-cyclists who set policy for cycling!
>>>
>>> The percentage of legislators who have been cyclists, in any
>>> more than the most casual sense, has been roughly zero since
>>> around 1900. Those are the people who have written the laws
>>> that apply to cycling.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's right. And I've been bitching about cycling
>> public policy and 'infrastructure' and 'facilities' and
>> whatnot for decades. How's all that working out?
>
> Actually, I'm among those who say it's been fine for the 50+
> years I've been riding. During that time, I followed the
> rules of the road for all vehicles. I did very well.
>
> It seems to me that since the League of American Bicyclists
> went crazy begging for segregated facilities, things have
> gotten worse. We've gotten really weird designs installed,
> and people are wondering why my friends and I don't want to
> use them.
>

exactly.

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