On 5/28/2022 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>>>> while some
>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>>>> paltry 4% of
>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>
>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
>>> can usually stop most legislation to which it strongly
>>> objects. U.S. Senate rules are more than usually restrictive
>>> that way. And Republicans in the Senate routinely stop any
>>> chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>
>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding
>>> the relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to
>>> NRA: Even a majority of _those_ want more restrictions on
>>> guns. But they're scammed by the NRA's crooked top dogs who
>>> (for example) absolutely convinced them that Obama was going
>>> to take all their guns away.
>>>
>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine
>>> working, and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've
>>> got a big mansion, right?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How would you feel about First Amendment prior restraint?
>>
>> First, secure a license to speak- fill out forms, go to a
>> government office, wait to be approved, carry a speaking
>> card with you. Then when you actually wish to speak you'll
>> need a permit for a specific time/subject/venue.
>> 'reasonable restrictions' as it were.
>
> I would feel it's a blatant attempt to change the subject,
> substituting a weirdly hypothetical situation for a
> currently atrocious one.
>
>
You missed my point entirely

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

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

Among the lobby racket players, NRA is chump change.

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

On 5/28/2022 3:55 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.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.
>
>
>
>
>> oil companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And Republicans
>> appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>>
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski

It's both parties (or 'all' if you include the Greens,
Socialists, Libertarians etc).

And it's their Constitutional right "to petition the
Government for a redress of grievances."

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

On 5/28/2022 4:46 PM, russellseaton1@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

On 5/28/2022 5:02 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 11:06:07 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 10:50 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I've bitched about the payroll tax for over fifty years. Join me. But
>>> that tax will only go up, necessarily, (although never enough to fund
>>> SS/Medicare).
>> Increase the _real_ tax in the mega-rich and on the largest, most
>> profitable corporations. Then compensate by lowering the FIT on less
>> wealthy individuals.
>> --
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
> One very simple and obvious fix to the payroll taxes Andy is complaining about is to increase the amount of pay that the payroll tax applies to. $147,000 is the limit for 2022. So all of the employees earning W-2 wages above $147K do not pay any payroll taxes on their wages above $147K. Joe makes $400K so he does not pay any payroll tax on $253K of his salary. All 435 House and 11 Senate members get $174K salary. So they do not pay any payroll taxes on $27K. Payroll taxes are 15.3% of salary. Split between employer and employee. So 535 Legislatures times $27K times 15.3% equals $2,210,085 extra money to fund Social Security and Medicare. Maybe that is just too simple. Andy, would this extra $2.2 million paid into FICA cover your shop's portion?
>

I'm not sure you're wrong about that.

As I understand it, the salary cap relates to the benefits
cap so raising one would open a question about the other.
But raising benefits at the top end is considered impolitic
so that's been a standoff for years.

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

On 5/28/2022 7:27 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 12:29:15 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/2022 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>>>> while some
>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>>>> paltry 4% of
>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>
>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
>>> can usually stop most legislation to which it strongly
>>> objects. U.S. Senate rules are more than usually restrictive
>>> that way. And Republicans in the Senate routinely stop any
>>> chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>
>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>
>>>
>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding
>>> the relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to
>>> NRA: Even a majority of _those_ want more restrictions on
>>> guns. But they're scammed by the NRA's crooked top dogs who
>>> (for example) absolutely convinced them that Obama was going
>>> to take all their guns away.
>>>
>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine
>>> working, and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've
>>> got a big mansion, right?
>>>
>>>
>> To scale that-
>>
>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/american-hospital-assn/lobbying?id=D000000116
>>
>> and those guys are not even 'big' players.
>
> Rather question who isn't lobbying?
> The Black Fellows - ~14% of the population are leaping up and down,
> The Italians and the Irish, of course, experienced substantial hard
> feelings, but being clever folk got into politics and even elected
> their own Mayors, Governors and Presidents.
> Fiorello Henry La Guardia, for example was mayor of New York City from
> 1934 to 1945. And we all remember the poor little Irish chap from
> Massachusetts, grandson of a bar owner, that made it all the way to
> Washington.
>

Yes a long history. The Chicago Italians consistently
supported Republicans until Hizzoner Da Mare Richard J Daly
leveled the Taylor Street neighborhoods to build public
housing. The Italians went on to vote Republican in the
suburbs instead.

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

On 5/28/2022 8:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>>>> while some
>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>>>> paltry 4% of
>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>
>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
>>> can usually
>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S.
>>> Senate rules
>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And
>>> Republicans in the
>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>
>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>
>>>
>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And
>>> regarding the
>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA:
>>> Even a
>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But
>>> they're scammed
>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example)
>>> absolutely convinced
>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>
>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that
>>> machine working,
>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when
>>> you've got a big
>>> mansion, right?
>>
>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who
>> die in car
>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing
>> that masks and
>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>
>
> Write this down and memorize it: "Consider benefits vs.
> detriments." You seem to forget the concept within minutes.
>
> We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the
> benefits of bicycling. As I've often said, every study on
> the topic has found the life extending benefits of bicycling
> far outweigh its minimal risks. Do you really need the
> citations again?
>
> By contrast: What are the benefits of letting ordinary (or
> worse than ordinary) people buy guns optimized for mass
> shooting and combat situations? What good does it do?
>

I agree with the principle to consider benefits. Your
average USAian considers bicycles and bicyclists to be of
zero utility to the nation. Now what?

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

On 5/28/2022 10:17 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>>>>>> were required
>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>>>>> experience with
>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>>>>>> letter of the
>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>>>>>> read it over and over until
>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
>>>>>> democracy
>>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
>>>>>> assumes,
>>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> How naive!
>>>>>
>>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
>>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
>>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
>>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
>>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
>>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
>>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
>>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
>>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
>>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
>>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
>>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
>>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you decry and
>>>> moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968, 1986 extensions.
>>>>
>>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in the same way
>>>> that people with outstanding warrants get new driver's licenses and new
>>>> charge cards. That's like advocating 'mental health services'; money is
>>>> spent, nothing happens after that.
>>>
>>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is imperfect, so
>>> absolutely nothing should be done." By that logic, we should repeal laws
>>> making it illegal to steal from bike shops; because obviously, people
>>> steal from bike shops despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
>>>
>>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move would be to
>>> improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect that a person with a
>>> background of deadly assault and currently under multiple restraining
>>> orders should be able to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge
>>> arises. That's absolutely nuts.
>>>
>>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They have less cash
>>>> to throw around with today's membership (newer firearms organizations
>>>> are growing rapidly. NRA is not).
>>>
>>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant to me. And
>>> judging by the behavior of the politicians who received them, the totals
>>> are disgustingly effective.
>>>
>>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
>>>> rights, and only that.
>>>
>>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not carved into
>>> Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted much, much differently.
>>> Until the NRA-backed turn to national insanity, there was no general
>>> policy claiming any nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized
>>> for mass killing.
>>
>> You keep harping on that subject, "firearms optimized for mass
>> killing".
>>
>> But, do you know what you are talking about?
>>
>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>
> Tubular magazine. One of the first. Along with the Spencer. With the Henry it had the tubular magazine under the barrel. With the Spencer it had the magazine tube inside the stock. Spencer held 7. To load them, you had to open the tubular magazine and insert one bullet at a time into the magazine. Drop them down in the tube. Somewhat slow. I have two 22 caliber guns at my house and both have tubular magazines. It takes a little while to load them.
>
> One very important point I should make. The magazine on the Henry and the Spencer, were attached to the gun. They were NOT separate magazines. You could not just load a whole new fully loaded magazine into the gun. You had to reload the attached, included magazine on the gun itself. Having a detached magazine makes the reloading much much much faster. I do not think your bringing up the Henry magazine is very practical for your argument.
>
>
>
>> So all the man killer things you shout about include options that are
>> two hundred years old and in one instance, perhaps, 400 years old.
>>
>> So, if they use centuries old technology can you say "optimized"?
>>
>> But supposing that you are correct that short barrel, semi-automatic,
>> pistol grip, etc., is optimized for killing and thus, reading between
>> the lines here, are terrible, terrible.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine
> This is the M4 carbine used by the US military. Its a sort of scaled down M16. M16 had longer barrel and the built in handle on top. Please note the short barrel, semi-automatic (and full automatic or 3 round burst), pistol grip, high capacity magazine (30 rounds). I am pretty dog gone certain the US military chose this weapon for its optimized killing. The short barrel makes killing inside buildings better because you can point the gun/barrel at your target, people, quicker. And pull the trigger and shoot them faster. Before they shoot you.
>
> Do you think the Texas murderer who killed the 19 kids and 2 adults used this feature on his gun? To kill the kids faster? Before the kids could shoot him?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Then why do you issue them, in the form of "pistols" to police forces.
>> Are the police in the business of "man killing"?
>>
>> Oh yes... according to FBI records, rifles are used, in 2019, in 1.9%
>> of all murders and, just by the way, knives which you discount, were
>> used in 10.5% and hands and feet in 4.3%.
>
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
> Total murders in 2019 13,927
> Total firearms 10,258
> Handguns 6,368
> Rifles 364
> Shotguns 200
> Other guns 45
> Firearms, type not stated 3,281
> Knives 1,476
> Blunt objects 397
> Hands feet 600
> Other weapons or weapon not stated 840
> and numerous other ways to kill people make out the rest. all small numbers, sort of.
>
> John, I'll believe your percentages of 1.9% and 10.5% and 4.3%. But what strikes me about the above totals from the FBI is the 3,281 Firearms, type not stated and the 840 Other weapons. How many of those were the AR-15 rifles that seem to be so popular with mass murderers? I do not know why those categories are so large. Isn't the type of weapon used to commit a murder somewhat obvious? But for some reason we have 4,121 of the 13,927 murders in 2019 that do not state the weapon in the cause of the murder. Its 29.6% of the total. If just half of those 4,121 unclassified are the AR-15 rifle, then your 1.9% gets thrown into the sh-thole.
>
> But I will throw you a bone. The infamous AR-15 rifle seems to be mainly used in mass killings. Many people murdered at once in one location or episode. The one murder on the street is usually a pistol. Andy loves to talk about all the murders in Chicago. All those are one or two people being murdered. So almost certainly with pistols. Pistols are easier to conceal and faster to get off one or two shots. Quick murders. Whereas the AR-15 rifle is big and long. And easily seen. And since mass murderers want to be seen and noticed, they choose a gun that is obvious, not concealed. And its really good at killing people fast.
>
> And the individual killings are far more prevalent in the US than the mass murders. There are many, many, many individual killings for every one mass killing. So the totals are predominantly of the individual killings. Even though the mass killings kill lots at once, their totals killed cannot compare to all the individual killings. Fortunately, I guess.
>
>
>
>>
>> So, reality is that your man killing assault rifles, that you so fear,
>> were used in far, far, fewer murders then even knives and hands and
>> feet.
>>
>> Or perhaps another way to put it is, "You really don't know what you
>> are talking about".
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

On 5/28/2022 10:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>
>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party can usually
>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S. Senate rules
>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And Republicans in the
>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>>
>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>
>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding the
>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA: Even a
>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But they're scammed
>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example) absolutely convinced
>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>
>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine working,
>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>
>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've got a big
>>>> mansion, right?
>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who die in car
>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing that masks and
>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>>
>> Concerning the car deaths, there have been lots of federal rules and regulations put into affect. From speed limits to seatbelts being mandatory when in the car to cars having airbags to improving the structure of cars when crashing and rollovers. So the political parties seem to care a great deal about killing people in cars and pass lots of laws. But one political party does not care at all about guns killing people. So what. No new laws. Lets eliminate the existing laws.
>
> Come now. There have been "gun laws", dating back to Pilgrim days. In
> the 1800's in the West there were gun laws, in fact the so called O.K.
> Corral shooting was over a violation of the Town's gun laws.At least
> that was the ostensible reason. New York passed the Sullivan Act in
> 1911.
>
> But how many gun laws do you need? "Don't shoot the SOB or you go to
> jail", ought to be sufficient.
>

It's extremely difficult to draw any prison sentence for
one's first few violent felonies, even fatal escapades.

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

On 5/28/2022 11:43 PM, 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".
>

Different countries do many things differently. Mexico for
example doesn't have a medical prescription requirement. I
know USAians who cross the border to buy medications dirt
cheap- the same product- with much less trouble and expense.

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

On 5/29/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>>>>>>> were required
>>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>>>>>> experience with
>>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>>>>>>> letter of the
>>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>>>>>>> read it over and over until
>>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
>>>>>>> democracy
>>>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
>>>>>>> assumes,
>>>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>>>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How naive!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
>>>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
>>>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
>>>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
>>>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
>>>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
>>>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
>>>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
>>>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
>>>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
>>>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
>>>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>>>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
>>>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you decry and
>>>>> moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968, 1986 extensions.
>>>>>
>>>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in the same way
>>>>> that people with outstanding warrants get new driver's licenses and new
>>>>> charge cards. That's like advocating 'mental health services'; money is
>>>>> spent, nothing happens after that.
>>>>
>>>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is imperfect, so
>>>> absolutely nothing should be done." By that logic, we should repeal laws
>>>> making it illegal to steal from bike shops; because obviously, people
>>>> steal from bike shops despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
>>>>
>>>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move would be to
>>>> improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect that a person with a
>>>> background of deadly assault and currently under multiple restraining
>>>> orders should be able to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge
>>>> arises. That's absolutely nuts.
>>>>
>>>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They have less cash
>>>>> to throw around with today's membership (newer firearms organizations
>>>>> are growing rapidly. NRA is not).
>>>>
>>>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant to me. And
>>>> judging by the behavior of the politicians who received them, the totals
>>>> are disgustingly effective.
>>>>
>>>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
>>>>> rights, and only that.
>>>>
>>>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not carved into
>>>> Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted much, much differently.
>>>> Until the NRA-backed turn to national insanity, there was no general
>>>> policy claiming any nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized
>>>> for mass killing.
>>>
>>> You keep harping on that subject, "firearms optimized for mass
>>> killing".
>>>
>>> But, do you know what you are talking about?
>>>
>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>
>> Tubular magazine. One of the first. Along with the Spencer. With the Henry it had the tubular magazine under the barrel. With the Spencer it had the magazine tube inside the stock. Spencer held 7. To load them, you had to open the tubular magazine and insert one bullet at a time into the magazine. Drop them down in the tube. Somewhat slow. I have two 22 caliber guns at my house and both have tubular magazines. It takes a little while to load them.
>>
>> One very important point I should make. The magazine on the Henry and the Spencer, were attached to the gun. They were NOT separate magazines. You could not just load a whole new fully loaded magazine into the gun. You had to reload the attached, included magazine on the gun itself. Having a detached magazine makes the reloading much much much faster. I do not think your bringing up the Henry magazine is very practical for your argument.
>>
> Well, yes. but is that really material? Oh! I can reload so quickly.
> Perhaps yes and perhaps no. But it certainly is a subject that the
> anti gunners (for want of a better name) go on about.
>
> But more to the point, perhaps, is that looking at the Wikki it seems
> that "mass shootings", 31 cases, 1948 - 2022, and "rampage shooting",
> 100 cases 1863 - 2021, are fairly common in the U.S. and in most of
> the cases the shooter is killed by the police while in Thailand I
> believe there has been only one in the 50 years I've lived here.
>
> While admittedly it is hard to compare, Thailand has about 1/5th the
> population of the U.S., if one goes on that basis then Thailand would
> have had something like 26 cases of mass shooting, but have had only
> 1.
>
> The anti gunners will cry, "Gun Laws! Gun Laws!" but the truth is that
> guns are readily available here. Way back when, we were living sort of
> "out in the country" and I mentioned "maybe a gun would be good" and
> my wife "went to town" and came back with a 12 gauge pistol. No fuss
> at all. And reading the news one on one shootings are common.
>
> So, why the difference?
>
> Another point that seems puzzling is that looking at the list of
> shootings nearly all have ended in the perpetrator being killed by the
> police. So, effectively, a mass shooting appears to be an exercise in
> suicide, so to speak. I shoot a bunch of people and the police shoot
> me!
>
> Are people in the U.S. suicide prone?
>

On 5/29/2022 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 8:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>>>>> while some
>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>>>>> paltry 4% of
>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>
>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
>>>> can usually
>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S.
>>>> Senate rules
>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And
>>>> Republicans in the
>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>>
>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And
>>>> regarding the
>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA:
>>>> Even a
>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But
>>>> they're scammed
>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example)
>>>> absolutely convinced
>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>
>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that
>>>> machine working,
>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when
>>>> you've got a big
>>>> mansion, right?
>>>
>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who
>>> die in car
>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing
>>> that masks and
>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>
>>
>> Write this down and memorize it:  "Consider benefits vs.
>> detriments." You seem to forget the concept within minutes.
>>
>> We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the
>> benefits of bicycling. As I've often said, every study on
>> the topic has found the life extending benefits of bicycling
>> far outweigh its minimal risks. Do  you really need the
>> citations again?
>>
>> By contrast: What are the benefits of letting ordinary (or
>> worse than ordinary) people buy guns optimized for mass
>> shooting and combat situations? What good does it do?
>>
>
> I agree with the principle to consider benefits. Your average USAian
> considers bicycles and bicyclists to be of zero utility to the nation.
> Now what?

Those that don't value bicycles don't buy one. They get no benefits of
bicycling, but bicycling by others imposes no harm on them.

That's markedly different than the effect of combat-optimized guns on
others. Nobody gets any real benefit (aside from getting to play with a
macho toy) but many people suffer huge detriments, including loss of life.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 11:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B.
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank 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
>>>>>
>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
>>>>> democracy
>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
>>>>> assumes,
>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>>>>> be changed.
>>>>
>>>> How naive!
>>>>
>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>
>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just
>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you
>>> decry and moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968,
>>> 1986 extensions.
>>>
>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in
>>> the same way that people with outstanding warrants get new
>>> driver's licenses and new charge cards. That's like
>>> advocating 'mental health services'; money is spent,
>>> nothing happens after that.
>>
>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is
>> imperfect, so absolutely nothing should be done." By that
>> logic, we should repeal laws making it illegal to steal from
>> bike shops; because obviously, people steal from bike shops
>> despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
>>
>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move
>> would be to improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect
>> that a person with a background of deadly assault and
>> currently under multiple restraining orders should be able
>> to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge arises.
>> That's absolutely nuts.
>>
>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They
>>> have less cash to throw around with today's membership
>>> (newer firearms organizations are growing rapidly. NRA is
>>> not).
>>
>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant
>> to me. And judging by the behavior of the politicians who
>> received them, the totals are disgustingly effective.
>>
>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
>>> rights, and only that.
>>
>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not
>> carved into Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted
>> much, much differently. Until the NRA-backed turn to
>> national insanity, there was no general policy claiming any
>> nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized for mass
>> killing.
>>
>> The second amendment does not say "The right to murder
>> groups of schoolkids shall not be infringed."
>>
>
> There's no one rational arguing for repeal of laws against felon in
> possession or firearms for lunatics. For years a majority of citizens,
> firearms owners and the NRA officially and loudly have begged for
> enforcement of those laws. That plea falls on deaf ears.
>
> Peruse any overnight news, any day, in any large jurisdiction:
>
> https://cwbchicago.com/2022/05/prosecutors-reject-carjacking-charges-chicago-judge-asks-why.html

I'm all for enforcement of those laws. And yes, this case certainly
sounds like it was improperly prosecuted. I have no idea what went
through the prosecutor's mind.

> In theory a multiple felon using a firearm in commission of a violent
> crime is supposed to get a mandatory prison sentence just for
> possession.  That's almost never charged.

I think one problem is the lack of space to house offenders, which
returns the issue to taxation, since cells are expensive. But that can't
be the entire problem. As we've mentioned, the U.S. incarcerates an
astonishing percentage of its citizens. It still has grossly high rates
of violence and murder, most of which is tied to guns.

> Several most recent homicidal maniacs passed background checks, some
> more than once.

Does that not indicate that the standards need to be tightened? And I'd
also argue that more is needed.

It's not like we don't have other countries to use as models for what
works.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 12:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 10:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 17:10:53 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 6:21:27 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
>>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
>>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
>>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party can usually
>>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S. Senate rules
>>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And Republicans in the
>>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding the
>>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA: Even a
>>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But they're
>>>>> scammed
>>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example) absolutely convinced
>>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine working,
>>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've got a big
>>>>> mansion, right?
>>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who die in car
>>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing that masks and
>>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>>>
>>> Concerning the car deaths, there have been lots of federal rules and
>>> regulations put into affect.  From speed limits to seatbelts being
>>> mandatory when in the car to cars having airbags to improving the
>>> structure of cars when crashing and rollovers.  So the political
>>> parties seem to care a great deal about killing people in cars and
>>> pass lots of laws.  But one political party does not care at all
>>> about guns killing people.  So what.  No new laws.  Lets eliminate
>>> the existing laws.
>>
>> Come now. There have been "gun laws", dating back to Pilgrim days. In
>> the 1800's in the West there were gun laws, in fact the so called O.K.
>> Corral shooting was over a violation of the Town's gun laws.At least
>> that was the ostensible reason. New York passed the Sullivan Act in
>> 1911.
>>
>> But how many gun laws do you need? "Don't shoot the SOB or you go to
>> jail", ought to be sufficient.
>>
>
> It's extremely difficult to draw any prison sentence for one's first few
> violent felonies, even fatal escapades.

As I said, we already incarcerate at a higher rate than any comparable
country.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/incarceration-rates-by-country

Obviously that alone is not working. We still have far, far more gun crime.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 8:24:49 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 2:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/28/2022 1:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2022 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
> >>>> while some
> >>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
> >>>> paltry 4% of
> >>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
> >>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
> >>>
> >>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
> >>> can usually stop most legislation to which it strongly
> >>> objects. U.S. Senate rules are more than usually restrictive
> >>> that way. And Republicans in the Senate routinely stop any
> >>> chance of enhanced gun control.
> >>>
> >>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
> >>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding
> >>> the relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to
> >>> NRA: Even a majority of _those_ want more restrictions on
> >>> guns. But they're scammed by the NRA's crooked top dogs who
> >>> (for example) absolutely convinced them that Obama was going
> >>> to take all their guns away.
> >>>
> >>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine
> >>> working, and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
> >>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've
> >>> got a big mansion, right?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> How would you feel about First Amendment prior restraint?
> >>
> >> First, secure a license to speak- fill out forms, go to a
> >> government office, wait to be approved, carry a speaking
> >> card with you. Then when you actually wish to speak you'll
> >> need a permit for a specific time/subject/venue.
> >> 'reasonable restrictions' as it were.
> >
> > I would feel it's a blatant attempt to change the subject,
> > substituting a weirdly hypothetical situation for a
> > currently atrocious one.
> >
> >
> You missed my point entirely

He didn't miss your point. He simply lies about it. You're speaking to Frank and his communist leanings.

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??

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Different countries do many things differently. Mexico for example
> doesn't have a medical prescription requirement. I know USAians who
> cross the border to buy medications dirt cheap- the same product- with
> much less trouble and expense.

I certainly agree that different countries do things differently. If we
were smart, we'd view that as an opportunity for a "natural experiment."
That is, we'd look at what works and what doesn't work, by comparing
results between countries. On many issues we discuss here and elsewhere,
the data's easily available.

Somehow, that's not a popular strategy among many.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 1:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/29/2022 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 8:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>>>>>> while some
>>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>>>>>> paltry 4% of
>>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker?
>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>>
>>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
>>>>> can usually
>>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S.
>>>>> Senate rules
>>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And
>>>>> Republicans in the
>>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And
>>>>> regarding the
>>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA:
>>>>> Even a
>>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But
>>>>> they're scammed
>>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example)
>>>>> absolutely convinced
>>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that
>>>>> machine working,
>>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when
>>>>> you've got a big
>>>>> mansion, right?
>>>>
>>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who
>>>> die in car
>>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing
>>>> that masks and
>>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Write this down and memorize it:Â "Consider benefits vs.
>>> detriments." You seem to forget the concept within minutes.
>>>
>>> We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the
>>> benefits of bicycling. As I've often said, every study on
>>> the topic has found the life extending benefits of bicycling
>>> far outweigh its minimal risks. Do you really need the
>>> citations again?
>>>
>>> By contrast: What are the benefits of letting ordinary (or
>>> worse than ordinary) people buy guns optimized for mass
>>> shooting and combat situations? What good does it do?
>>>
>>
>> I agree with the principle to consider benefits. Your
>> average USAian considers bicycles and bicyclists to be of
>> zero utility to the nation. Now what?
>
> Those that don't value bicycles don't buy one. They get no
> benefits of bicycling, but bicycling by others imposes no
> harm on them.
>
> That's markedly different than the effect of
> combat-optimized guns on others. Nobody gets any real
> benefit (aside from getting to play with a macho toy) but
> many people suffer huge detriments, including loss of life.
>
>

Yes, that's exactly right.

If non-firearms owners decide policy for the rest, should
non-cyclists set policy for cyclists?

for , "play with a macho toy", read, "Oh, Mister Euro Pro
wannabe with his fancy dee-railer bike".
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

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

:-) I assure you, John, these discussions are not my only efforts on
these issues.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:10:39 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/28/2022 8:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >> <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?
> >
> > By contrast: What are the benefits of letting ordinary (or
> > worse than ordinary) people buy guns optimized for mass
> > shooting and combat situations? What good does it do?
> >
>
> I agree with the principle to consider benefits. Your
> average USAian considers bicycles and bicyclists to be of
> zero utility to the nation. Now what?

The reason that Frank shiould not be allowed to live in this country is because he cannot tell the diffence between some sort of nessesary "benefit" open to his OWN definition and the Constitutional right of people to make up their own right and own definition of their benefits to own a gun. While he has the Freedom of Speech and the right to his own opinions, he has been shoveling this shit down the minds of impressionable youth and he should be made to pay for that. I think that spending the rest of his life in prison would be a very good start.

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

On Sunday, May 29, 2022 at 9:26:19 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 5/29/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> > <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
> >>>>>>>>> were required
> >>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
> >>>>>>>>> experience with
> >>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
> >>>>>>>>> letter of the
> >>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
> >>>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
> >>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
> >>>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
> >>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
> >>>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
> >>>>>>>> in their favor.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
> >>>>>>>> read it over and over until
> >>>>>>>> you understand.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
> >>>>>>> democracy
> >>>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
> >>>>>>> assumes,
> >>>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
> >>>>>>> be changed.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How naive!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
> >>>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
> >>>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
> >>>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
> >>>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
> >>>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
> >>>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
> >>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
> >>>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
> >>>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
> >>>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
> >>>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
> >>>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
> >>>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
> >>>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you decry and
> >>>>> moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968, 1986 extensions.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in the same way
> >>>>> that people with outstanding warrants get new driver's licenses and new
> >>>>> charge cards. That's like advocating 'mental health services'; money is
> >>>>> spent, nothing happens after that.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is imperfect, so
> >>>> absolutely nothing should be done." By that logic, we should repeal laws
> >>>> making it illegal to steal from bike shops; because obviously, people
> >>>> steal from bike shops despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move would be to
> >>>> improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect that a person with a
> >>>> background of deadly assault and currently under multiple restraining
> >>>> orders should be able to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge
> >>>> arises. That's absolutely nuts.
> >>>>
> >>>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They have less cash
> >>>>> to throw around with today's membership (newer firearms organizations
> >>>>> are growing rapidly. NRA is not).
> >>>>
> >>>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant to me. And
> >>>> judging by the behavior of the politicians who received them, the totals
> >>>> are disgustingly effective.
> >>>>
> >>>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
> >>>>> rights, and only that.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not carved into
> >>>> Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted much, much differently..
> >>>> Until the NRA-backed turn to national insanity, there was no general
> >>>> policy claiming any nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized
> >>>> for mass killing.
> >>>
> >>> You keep harping on that subject, "firearms optimized for mass
> >>> killing".
> >>>
> >>> But, do you know what you are talking about?
> >>>
> >>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
> >>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
> >>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
> >>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
> >>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
> >>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
> >>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
> >>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
> >>
> >> Tubular magazine. One of the first. Along with the Spencer. With the Henry it had the tubular magazine under the barrel. With the Spencer it had the magazine tube inside the stock. Spencer held 7. To load them, you had to open the tubular magazine and insert one bullet at a time into the magazine. Drop them down in the tube. Somewhat slow. I have two 22 caliber guns at my house and both have tubular magazines. It takes a little while to load them.
> >>
> >> One very important point I should make. The magazine on the Henry and the Spencer, were attached to the gun. They were NOT separate magazines. You could not just load a whole new fully loaded magazine into the gun. You had to reload the attached, included magazine on the gun itself. Having a detached magazine makes the reloading much much much faster. I do not think your bringing up the Henry magazine is very practical for your argument.
> >>
> > Well, yes. but is that really material? Oh! I can reload so quickly.
> > Perhaps yes and perhaps no. But it certainly is a subject that the
> > anti gunners (for want of a better name) go on about.
> >
> > But more to the point, perhaps, is that looking at the Wikki it seems
> > that "mass shootings", 31 cases, 1948 - 2022, and "rampage shooting",
> > 100 cases 1863 - 2021, are fairly common in the U.S. and in most of
> > the cases the shooter is killed by the police while in Thailand I
> > believe there has been only one in the 50 years I've lived here.
> >
> > While admittedly it is hard to compare, Thailand has about 1/5th the
> > population of the U.S., if one goes on that basis then Thailand would
> > have had something like 26 cases of mass shooting, but have had only
> > 1.
> >
> > The anti gunners will cry, "Gun Laws! Gun Laws!" but the truth is that
> > guns are readily available here. Way back when, we were living sort of
> > "out in the country" and I mentioned "maybe a gun would be good" and
> > my wife "went to town" and came back with a 12 gauge pistol. No fuss
> > at all. And reading the news one on one shootings are common.
> >
> > So, why the difference?
> >
> > Another point that seems puzzling is that looking at the list of
> > shootings nearly all have ended in the perpetrator being killed by the
> > police. So, effectively, a mass shooting appears to be an exercise in
> > suicide, so to speak. I shoot a bunch of people and the police shoot
> > me!
> >
> > Are people in the U.S. suicide prone?
> >
> Some deaths are not less tragic, not less horrible, not less
> important but a heck of a lot less 'newsy'
>
> https://news.wttw.com/2021/12/04/new-docuseries-shines-light-chicago-strangulation-cases
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 5/29/2022 1:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 5/29/2022 11:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B.
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> democracy
>>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So,
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> assumes,
>>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> How naive!
>>>>>
>>>>> The American legislative processes have been
>>>>> systematically
>>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
>>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
>>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
>>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
>>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
>>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws
>>>>> are
>>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
>>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for
>>>>> easier gun
>>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
>>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for
>>>>> protection
>>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
>>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just
>>>>> fine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you
>>>> decry and moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968,
>>>> 1986 extensions.
>>>>
>>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in
>>>> the same way that people with outstanding warrants get new
>>>> driver's licenses and new charge cards. That's like
>>>> advocating 'mental health services'; money is spent,
>>>> nothing happens after that.
>>>
>>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is
>>> imperfect, so absolutely nothing should be done." By that
>>> logic, we should repeal laws making it illegal to steal from
>>> bike shops; because obviously, people steal from bike shops
>>> despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
>>>
>>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move
>>> would be to improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect
>>> that a person with a background of deadly assault and
>>> currently under multiple restraining orders should be able
>>> to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge arises.
>>> That's absolutely nuts.
>>>
>>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They
>>>> have less cash to throw around with today's membership
>>>> (newer firearms organizations are growing rapidly. NRA is
>>>> not).
>>>
>>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant
>>> to me. And judging by the behavior of the politicians who
>>> received them, the totals are disgustingly effective.
>>>
>>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
>>>> rights, and only that.
>>>
>>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not
>>> carved into Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted
>>> much, much differently. Until the NRA-backed turn to
>>> national insanity, there was no general policy claiming any
>>> nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized for mass
>>> killing.
>>>
>>> The second amendment does not say "The right to murder
>>> groups of schoolkids shall not be infringed."
>>>
>>
>> There's no one rational arguing for repeal of laws against
>> felon in possession or firearms for lunatics. For years a
>> majority of citizens, firearms owners and the NRA
>> officially and loudly have begged for enforcement of those
>> laws. That plea falls on deaf ears.
>>
>> Peruse any overnight news, any day, in any large
>> jurisdiction:
>>
>> https://cwbchicago.com/2022/05/prosecutors-reject-carjacking-charges-chicago-judge-asks-why.html
>
>
> I'm all for enforcement of those laws. And yes, this case
> certainly sounds like it was improperly prosecuted. I have
> no idea what went through the prosecutor's mind.
>
>> In theory a multiple felon using a firearm in commission
>> of a violent crime is supposed to get a mandatory prison
>> sentence just for possession. That's almost never charged.
>
> I think one problem is the lack of space to house offenders,
> which returns the issue to taxation, since cells are
> expensive. But that can't be the entire problem. As we've
> mentioned, the U.S. incarcerates an astonishing percentage
> of its citizens. It still has grossly high rates of violence
> and murder, most of which is tied to guns.
>
>> Several most recent homicidal maniacs passed background
>> checks, some more than once.
>
> Does that not indicate that the standards need to be
> tightened? And I'd also argue that more is needed.
>
> It's not like we don't have other countries to use as models
> for what works.
>
>

I am not expert but I know a couple of things, one being
that not charging felons in possession following armed
violence is not anomalous. It's the stated policy of the
State's Attorney in Cook County, as it is in several other
large jurisdictions and many smaller ones.

Another is that State prison systems are at the lowest % of
capacity in years:
https://www.wglt.org/illinois/2022-02-17/idoc-makes-plan-to-close-units-at-vandalia-pontiac-prisons

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

I'm surprised that you don't realize that it's almost entirely
non-cyclists who set policy for cycling!

The percentage of legislators who have been cyclists, in any more than
the most casual sense, has been roughly zero since around 1900. Those
are the people who have written the laws that apply to cycling.

--
- Frank Krygowski