On 5/29/2022 9:42 PM, Frank Krygowski 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, 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.
>

I'm very familiar with civilian semi AR-10. It is not an
AR-15. Here's a 1960 AR-10 in .308:

https://armeriawaa.it/1125-armalite-ar10-1960-308-winchester/

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

On 5/29/2022 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> 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"
>
>

On 5/30/2022 2:57 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.

Waukesha parade killer, a career criminal who set out to
'kill white people', wasn't shot either. Looking for or
inventing 'systemic racism' doesn't help analysis.

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

On 5/30/2022 3:26 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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?
>

The salient feature of military rifles in the giggle switch.

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

On 5/30/2022 3:40 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> 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.
>

Good luck with that. Here's your future:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woman-harassed-on-nyc-subway-as-bystanders-do-nothing/ar-AAXOfNg

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-subway-shooting-fear-mass-transit-office-workers-20220524-zd5x2ln3qbb2jc3ncjeyfw3bpa-story.html

https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-city-subway-crime-gunman-unprovoked-shooting

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

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 5:57:26 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 3:40 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> Good luck with that. Here's your future:
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woman-harassed-on-nyc-subway-as-bystanders-do-nothing/ar-AAXOfNg
>
> https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-subway-shooting-fear-mass-transit-office-workers-20220524-zd5x2ln3qbb2jc3ncjeyfw3bpa-story.html
>
> https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-city-subway-crime-gunman-unprovoked-shooting

The low-life five would stand and watcvh something like that happen and then come to this group and say that the government should do something. The one time something like that happened around me the perpetrators, I'm quite sure, never did it again. I can say for sertai that he NEVER entered that restaurant again. This sort of courage like that shown by Flunky only exists when it isn't opposed.

On 5/30/2022 12:17 AM, John B. wrote:
> 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?

Many of them, yes, that fits. They'll gradually speed up to 15 mph and
feel very, very proud.

But the major difference is, all those $10,000 bikes are hurting nobody
else. And even at 12 mph, they're doing physical and probably emotional
good to the riders. That's markedly different from, say, a $10,000
fast-firing, lightweight, portable, agile rifle used for fantasy combat
and occasional mass murder.

>> 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.

I have two close friends who had the experience, in Viet Nam. One has
still not recovered psychologically. He never will. And BTW, he has
absolutely no interest in owning guns.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2022 8:34 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/29/2022 9:42 PM, Frank Krygowski 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, 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.
>>
>
> I'm very familiar with civilian semi AR-10. It is not an AR-15. Here's a
> 1960 AR-10 in .308:
>
> https://armeriawaa.it/1125-armalite-ar10-1960-308-winchester/

To riff on John's bicycle analogy: You're looking at the situation as a
bike expert would look at a newbie's Chinese aluminum frame "racing"
bike. You're saying "It's in no way the same as a Trek Madone."

But they look the same, they have most of the same important features,
they hew to the same general design objectives. And they evoke the same
emotions: "I'm tough! I'm well equipped!! I'm a guy to be reckoned with!!"

The bike, however, doesn't telegraph "I'm deadly!"

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2022 8:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 3:26 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> The salient feature of military rifles in the giggle switch.

Cute.

That's for when 5 rounds in one second is somehow not enough. But take
heart! You can fit a bump stock!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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?

Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
a difference.

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

You built them? Why didn't you just go buy them at the local gun shop?

> As for 4 - 5 rounds a second??? All legally sold "assault rifles?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3gf_5MR4tE
And look at the charming targets he's using. What's he pretending to do?

> 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?

50 was an illustration, and I've never said those other guns are just
fine. (You really need to take notes.)

> 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

<sigh> Benefits vs. detriments, John. What are the public detriments of
someone else's $14,000 bike?

We know the public detriments of widespread ownership of rapid fire
guns. As an example, local news outlets recently showed police
investigating a murder scene. An officer was placing numbered markers on
shell casings in the street. He was up to number 20 or so. And that was
not an isolated incident. You know the cop was conscious of the fact
that if he had responded in time, he could have been the target.

What are the advantages of abetting that insanity? Why do so few other
countries agree on that policy?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2022 8:37 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/29/2022 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> 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"
>>
>>
>
> It's not a gift.
> If each corporate board could have found someone equally skilled for
> less compensation, they would have hired him.

On 5/30/2022 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 8:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/30/2022 3:26 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> 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?
>>>
>>
>> The salient feature of military rifles in the giggle switch.
>
> Cute.
>
> That's for when 5 rounds in one second is somehow not
> enough. But take heart! You can fit a bump stock!
>
>

All militaries issue full auto. We were discussing civilian
arms. There's a salient difference.

To your red herring, bump stocks and crank accessories are
dippy, extremely uncommon and were banned by Mr Trump.

Do you still have one at home? I otherwise don't know anyone
who does and I know a lot of firearms owners.

Jerry Miculek has been timed at 8 shots per second. With a
revolver. Videos abound if you're interested.

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

On 5/30/2022 1:13 AM, John B. wrote:
> 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.

You're showing Marines practicing shooting with combat-optimized
weapons. Why would civilians need to do that? What are the benefits,
that counter the serious detriments of huge gun death tolls and mass
murders?

(If marksmanship is really the ultimate aim, one can practice with a
pellet gun.)

> As for hunting
> https://www.themeateater.com/hunt/firearm-hunting/should-your-next-deer-rifle-be-an-ar-15

That's click bait for AR fetishists. The proper answer to the question
posed is "no." No truly serious deer hunter thinks an AR is the best
deer rifle. Read this:

https://www.ydr.com/story/news/2018/02/06/ar-15-s-legal-hunting-pa-but-some-hunters-dont-want-them/1036386001/

(And be awed by the manly man using the bump stock. Luckily he's got
plenty of body mass to counter the recoil.)

> As for mass murder? I'm not sure but I believe that just about every
> sort has been used.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/04/22/fact-check-post-missing-context-ar-15-rifles-and-mass-shootings/7039204002/

Except for attempting to kill people, there's no practical need for guns
that can fire more than ten shots within one minute. You've never been
able to rebut that point.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Am 30.05.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
>>>
>>> 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"
>>
>> It's not a gift.
>> If each corporate board could have found someone equally skilled for
>> less compensation, they would have hired him.
>
> I suggest workers in India or China.
>
> And I'll note that CEOs of similar corporations in Europe make far less,
> despite similar success. Oh, and they are taxed at much higher rates.

Typically, the most important asset of a potential CEO is "He's a chum
of the guy on the corporate board", and the most typical way of
determining a salary is "5% more that the salary of our competition's
CEO because obviously we are better then them".

On 5/30/2022 8:57 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 3:40 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> 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.
>>>
>>> If I understand you it's annoyingly dysfunctional and runs a
>>> deficit besides. Perfect example of a government program!

I'll point out, it runs a "deficit" because it's supported by taxpayer
dollars. That happens to a greater degree in most European cities I've
visited, and with the greater spending comes much better function.

I assume it's judged there on its benefits and detriments. That is,
those European governments long ago decided it's better to provide
relatively inexpensive (to the user) travel options so lower income
people can get around. As a result, those low income people have access
to jobs. Fewer of them end up on the dole.

I suppose we could eliminate bus transportation, watch the rise in
unemployment, watch the resulting crime increase and homeless shelter
expenses. But would that be better?

> Good luck with that. Here's your future:
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/woman-harassed-on-nyc-subway-as-bystanders-do-nothing/ar-AAXOfNg
>
>
> https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/new-york-elections-government/ny-nyc-mayor-eric-adams-subway-shooting-fear-mass-transit-office-workers-20220524-zd5x2ln3qbb2jc3ncjeyfw3bpa-story.html
>
>
> https://www.foxnews.com/us/new-york-city-subway-crime-gunman-unprovoked-shooting

Wait - are you now implying those guys shouldn't have guns??

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2022 8:27 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> 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

Barely on the market, not well known. Extremely uncommon. Once the style
became common, mass shootings rose significantly.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 8:52:33 AM UTC-7, Rolf Mantel wrote:
> Am 30.05.2022 um 17:27 schrieb Frank Krygowski:
> >>>
> >>> 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"
> >>
> >> It's not a gift.
> >> If each corporate board could have found someone equally skilled for
> >> less compensation, they would have hired him.
> >
> > I suggest workers in India or China.
> >
> > And I'll note that CEOs of similar corporations in Europe make far less,
> > despite similar success. Oh, and they are taxed at much higher rates.
> Typically, the most important asset of a potential CEO is "He's a chum
> of the guy on the corporate board", and the most typical way of
> determining a salary is "5% more that the salary of our competition's
> CEO because obviously we are better then them".

As ir turns out, many of the places I worked had the same CEO and he worked for about the average wage for a company President. Most people are not money hungry. He had a nice but not exceptional car and probably still does.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>> 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?
>
>Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>a difference.

Frank, you are a fool.

Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?

A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
residue even longer to load.

So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
again.

You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
"optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?

The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
I fired one, once".

And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.

So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
once) about.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:27:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/30/2022 8:37 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/29/2022 10:11 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> 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"
>>>
>>>
>>
>> It's not a gift.
>> If each corporate board could have found someone equally skilled for
>> less compensation, they would have hired him.
>
>I suggest workers in India or China.
>
>And I'll note that CEOs of similar corporations in Europe make far less,
>despite similar success. Oh, and they are taxed at much higher rates.

On 5/30/2022 11:38 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/30/2022 10:12 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/30/2022 8:53 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/30/2022 3:26 AM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The salient feature of military rifles in the giggle switch.
>>
>> Cute.
>>
>> That's for when 5 rounds in one second is somehow not
>> enough. But take heart! You can fit a bump stock!
>>
>>
>
> All militaries issue full auto. We were discussing civilian arms.
> There's a salient difference.

Right. So far, American governments have been able to keep full auto
firearms illegal - although I wouldn't doubt that "gun rights!" people
have repealing that on the list of future requests.

> To your red herring, bump stocks and crank accessories are dippy,
> extremely uncommon and were banned by Mr Trump.

That's true, but the NRA still didn't want them banned. Because shooting
50 rounds in ten seconds is absolutely necessary for "Freedom!!" - or
something. More likely, it's necessary for some guys to feel adequately
manly.

> Do you still have one at home? I otherwise don't know anyone who does
> and I know a lot of firearms owners.
>
> Jerry Miculek has been timed at 8 shots per second. With a revolver.
> Videos abound if you're interested.

Wonderful! And that's a really valuable skill because... ??

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/30/2022 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> 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?
>>
>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>> a difference.
>
> Frank, you are a fool.
>
> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>
> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
> residue even longer to load.
>
> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
> again.
>
> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>
> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
> I fired one, once".
>
> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>
> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
> once) about.

I'm sorry, John, you seem to have somehow completely misunderstood my
remark. I _said_ the 1700s muskets were optimized for killing. Don't
pretend I said the opposite.

Let me get more specific for you, regarding the implications: If the
guns of today were similar to the guns available for killing when the
2nd amendment was written, we would have far, far fewer gun killings. We
would have no mass murders by gun, and so almost no mass murders at all.

But technology has advanced tremendously. It would be fine if only what
was permissible in 1780 were permissible today, but we now have the
technological capability of killing a couple dozen innocent people
within a couple minutes. That should not even be legal in the hands of
the general public. What benefit does it confer?

And BTW, despite your claim, not all guns are optimized for killing
people. Would you say that about a single shot 22 rifle? Those are
typically optimized for shooting targets and small game. Many shotguns
are optimized for killing waterfowl. Many guns are optimized for very
serious target shooting.

You must have known all that. Did you just forget?

--
- Frank Krygowski

rOn Mon, 30 May 2022 21:12:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 5/30/2022 7:22 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
>>> for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
>>> have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
>>> a difference.
>>
>> Frank, you are a fool.
>>
>> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
>> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
>> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>>
>> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
>> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
>> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
>> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
>> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
>> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
>> residue even longer to load.
>>
>> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
>> again.
>>
>> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
>> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
>> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
>> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?
>>
>> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
>> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
>> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
>> I fired one, once".
>>
>> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
>> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
>> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>>
>> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
>> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
>> once) about.
>
>I'm sorry, John, you seem to have somehow completely misunderstood my
>remark. I _said_ the 1700s muskets were optimized for killing. Don't
>pretend I said the opposite.
>
>Let me get more specific for you, regarding the implications: If the
>guns of today were similar to the guns available for killing when the
>2nd amendment was written, we would have far, far fewer gun killings. We
>would have no mass murders by gun, and so almost no mass murders at all.
>
>But technology has advanced tremendously. It would be fine if only what
>was permissible in 1780 were permissible today, but we now have the
>technological capability of killing a couple dozen innocent people
>within a couple minutes. That should not even be legal in the hands of
>the general public. What benefit does it confer?
>
>And BTW, despite your claim, not all guns are optimized for killing
>people. Would you say that about a single shot 22 rifle? Those are
>typically optimized for shooting targets and small game. Many shotguns
>are optimized for killing waterfowl. Many guns are optimized for very
>serious target shooting.
>
>You must have known all that. Did you just forget?

O.K. one last time...

You wrote. "Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets
were optimized for killing"

And I agreed with you.

You stated that, "If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today,
we'd have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology
makes difference."

And I pointed out that they were "optimized" to be the best. With the
technology that desisted at the time.

Your arguments are silly at best and in fact just another example of
your total lack of knowledge of what you are talking about.

But O.K. lets go back to 1700's. No cars, Think of it, 47,000 lives
saved! No bicycles, another "nearly 1,000" lives saved.

Ridicules? Certainly. Just like your arguments.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:52:56 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 00:23:23 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@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.

John, you misinterpreted my comment. I wrote "Just two years?" Meaning you think Tommy has been "Tommy" for ONLY two years? I am pretty sure Tommy has been himself for at least two decades. Probably much longer. Tommys don't get created from a mere bump on the head. It takes decades and decades to develop the psychosis Tommy is experiencing.

On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 6:22:39 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 30 May 2022 11:24:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 5/29/2022 11:52 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:54:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@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?
> >
> >Watch the Jim Jeffries videos again. The 1770's muskets were optimized
> >for killing. If that design was what gun fetishists wanted today, we'd
> >have far fewer problems and roughly zero mass murders. Technology makes
> >a difference.
> Frank, you are a fool.
>
> Yes the 1779's muskets were optimized for killing. Of course they
> were. Or do you some how think that military weapons and tactics were
> somehow foolish simply because they don't match modern fancies?
>
> A an example, in the earlier days smooth bore "muskets" were the
> preferred infantry fire arm although the much more accurate "rifle"
> was invented in 1498. Evidence of the suddenness of the military. Not
> hardly. The musket could be loaded very quickly, four shots per
> minute, while the rifle took at least twice as long and as a battle
> progressed and the rifle became more and more "fouled" with powder
> residue even longer to load.
>
> So Frank, you exhibit your lack of knowledge about firearms once
> again.
>
> You go on and on about these terrible assault rifles that are
> "optimized for killing. Don't you realize that all firearms, from the
> very first "fire lance" developed in China more then 1000 years ago,
> were designed for, and logically optimized for, killing people?

No. Modern civilian rifles and shotguns are optimized for the game/target being shot. The biathalon rifle used by almost everyone is specifically optimized for skiing and shooting. Its 22 long rifle. Not much of a killer caliber. But they just shoot at metal disks. Shotguns are optimized for the birds being shot. And their choke is adjusted to fit how far away the targets will be when encountered. Small birds are OK with 410 or 28 gauge. Less powerful. But big birds such as pheasants will want a 12 gauge or at worst a 20 gauge. Skeet shooters shoot clay disks flying through the sky. Their over/under shotguns are 12 gauge and optimized for breaking the clay pigeons. And with hunting rifles, the bolt action is preferred by most. Accurate and can be made in all calibers on earth. Big caliber for shooting buffaloes or elephants in Africa. Smaller 22 or 30 calibers for deer in the US. And their are bigger cartridges for bigger game such as bear or moose. Optimized by caliber for the game being shot.

22 caliber rifle firearms are optimized for practice essentially. Plinking.. Or for kids to learn how to shoot a firearm. I have a couple 22 rifles available to use. Shooting opossums or raccoons. Not killing people.

>
> The fact is Frank that you really don't know anything at all about
> firearms and are speaking from a position of overwhelming ignorance.
> Your entire "claim to fame" in the gun question seems to be, "Oh yes,
> I fired one, once".
>
> And yes, you don't like them, one might even, from your writing,
> believe that you fear them, but, again from your writing, you
> certainly don't have any real knowledge of them.
>
> So lets just leave it at that. You are ranting and raving about a
> subject which you know, literally, nothing (yes, I know you shot one
> once) about.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Mon, 30 May 2022 21:06:38 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, May 30, 2022 at 2:52:56 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 30 May 2022 00:23:23 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@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.
>
>John, you misinterpreted my comment. I wrote "Just two years?" Meaning you think Tommy has been "Tommy" for ONLY two years? I am pretty sure Tommy has been himself for at least two decades. Probably much longer. Tommys don't get created from a mere bump on the head. It takes decades and decades to develop the psychosis Tommy is experiencing.

Well, I certainly wouldn't dispute you. But Tommy has talked about not
knowing what he was doing for two years after his crash and I did
interpret that as "insane" But, I just looked the term up and I see it
may mean, "afflicted with or characteristic of mental derangement" and
as Tommy has always seemed, well, as my Granny would have put it, "a
bit off" then it seems likely that your assessment is the correct one
(:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.