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

But John, according to my Google research, only 4 in 10 people live in a household with access to a gun. That is 40%. I am sure you realize the democracies work by being over 50%. So the majority of Americans are NOT gun owners. How does a democracy work?
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@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
>>>> <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.
>>>
>>
>> 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.
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.

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%.

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 Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:21:02 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:48:05 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
> >>>>> were required
> >>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
> >>>>> experience with
> >>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
> >>>>> letter of the
> >>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
> >>>>
> >>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
> >>>> not saying the ultra-rich
> >>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
> >>>> grossly faulty. And they are
> >>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
> >>>> paying to have the laws re-written
> >>>> in their favor.
> >>>>
> >>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
> >>>> read it over and over until
> >>>> you understand.
> >>>>
> >>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
> >>>
> >>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
> >>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
> >>> on her husband's portfolio.
> >>
> >> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't
> >> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
> >>
> >> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
> >Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm crime?
> Well, just like the "Black Lives Matter" thing, it is an easy target.
>
> See, them there fellows got guns! See Guns kill people! Must be them
> there fellows with them guns!

Down in Texas on Tuesday an 18 year old boy with a gun murdered 19 little kids and 2 adults. He used a gun. Not too many mass shootings happen without a gun. So I would say your statement of "them there fellows with them guns" is pretty accurate. They/him murdered the children. And adults.

>
> Never mind the reality that something like 30% of the U.S. public owns
> guns and that FBI records documented 10,927 firearm murders in 2019,
> or 1 firearm murder for every 9,189 gun owners... and 1/9189 is... not
> very many.

In 2020 there were 19,384 murders by gun. BIG HUGE jump up from your 10,927 firearm murders in 2019 number. Cuts your ratio number almost in half.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
"In 2020, 54% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides (24,292), while 43% were murders (19,384), according to the CDC. The remaining gun deaths that year were unintentional (535), involved law enforcement (611) or had undetermined circumstances (400)."

>
> In contrast I read that the average family size in the U.S. is
> currently 3.5 and 95% of the families own cars so one might say that
> there are ~95,624,696 auto owners in the U.S. and some 42,915 auto
> deaths in 2021. So... 95.624,696/42915=one death per 2,228 auto
> owners.
> Gee... that is WoW! Cars are 4.12 times as dangerious as firearms....

Using my more recent 2020 firearm deaths numbers, your 4.12 times gets chopped down to about 2 times. Yes cars are 2 times more dangerous than guns for people killed. And there are far more car safety rules and regulations on the books than there are for guns. Seatbelt laws, airbag requirement for all newer cars, speed limits, LICENSES to drive, photo cameras at stop signs and to catch speeders. We are restricting the hell out of the drivers. And its brought the death total down over time. Yeah. Do you think maybe if we did the same with guns that might occur?

https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatality-trends/deaths-and-rates/
This clearly shows we have come down a lot from the peak deaths and rates in the 1970s for car deaths.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
Go down a little ways in this link to the part titled "How has the rate of U.S. gun deaths changed over time?"
There you will find a graph showing the gun murder and gun suicide rates over time. 1968 to 2020. We are up to 6.2 gun murders per 100K in 2020. Below the peak of 7.2 per 100K in 1974.

>
> But we gotta ban them guns.... see they kill people.

No one is talking about banning guns. Guns are very useful. Right now the Ukrainians are using guns to kill Russians. Yeah!!!! I say that in a very cynical way. It would be very nice if no Russians were killed because they did not invade Ukraine. But that boat has sailed. The laws are meant to restrict guns to the appropriate people and places. Military styled weapons such as the infamous AR-15 used to make the M16 rifle used by the US military today, should be owned by militaries. And high capacity magazines and belts, such as the 200 round belt used in the Squad Automatic Weapon M249 in the Army. No one is trying to ban these weapons from the military.

> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:39:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 13:55:31 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@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?
>
> And even more complex, "what is a bribe?" U.S law allows (I read)
> contributories by individuals is limited to $2,900 per election. If
> the 2,999 chaps that work for me want to each make a maximum donation
> to the campaign of Mickey Mouse for president it is perfectly legal,'
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

John, you might not understand how political contributions work in the USA. What you state as the per person maximum may be right. But that does not in any way at all restrict a special interest group from donating million upon millions into advertising for the candidate you gave the $2900 to. But according to US laws you are not really giving the millions spent on advertising on the candidate's behalf to the candidate. So its all perfectly legal.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 09:50:12 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/27/2022 10:39 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 12:10:25 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 22:47:40 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/26/2022 8:17 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 May 2022 13:48:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/26/2022 6:51 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But those that live hand to mouth are nearly always simply frittering
>>>>>>> a portion of it away. When I was making $70 a month I still managed to
>>>>>>> save half my salary. In fact I've saved a portion of my income ever
>>>>>>> since I started working.... for my family at 25 cents a week (:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your "portions" are undefined, and are probably hypothetical and/or
>>>>>> minimal.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, during the 20 years I spent in the Air Force I saved half my
>>>>> monthly pay. Each month. As a kid I used to save 9 cents out of my 25
>>>>> cents pay, well for a little while anyway :-) See the Saturday Movie -
>>>>> two features, news and a "serial" - for 11 cents and 5 cents for
>>>>> popcorn. What could be finer?
>>>>>
>>>>> And after I went to work in Asia I saved, usually, something more then
>>>>> half my salary. As I mentioned on the last job - building a gas
>>>>> refinery - I was getting a very fine living allowance and so put my
>>>>> entire salary into savings.
>>>>>
>>>>> I bought my first "stocks", well actually shares in an Investment
>>>>> Fund, as a 20 year old.
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are certainly countless people who spend beyond their means. I
>>>>>> just finished a conversation with one such neighbor. I'm astonished at
>>>>>> what she buys, given her finances (which, BTW, are what I'd call middle
>>>>>> class).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But there are also countless poor people who indulge in only the tiniest
>>>>>> luxuries. I have a friend like that. You might begrudge his tiny
>>>>>> luxuries. ("You shouldn't have paid so much for that sandwich! Just eat
>>>>>> at home!") But to me he should be allowed to live a bit above starvation
>>>>>> level.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, a woman I know very well is very intelligent, very well
>>>>>> educated, an award winning artist of national repute. During the 1990s
>>>>>> she remarked that she was living on less than $10,000 per year. If she
>>>>>> chose to, say, buy a theater ticket, I don't think anyone should have
>>>>>> complained.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't know what "portion" of those folks meager incomes are or were
>>>>>> put aside, just as I don't know the "portion" you bragged about. I'm
>>>>>> just using them as examples that low income people are not necessarily
>>>>>> wasting lots of money.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't a matter of wasting, per se, it is a matter of living within
>>>>> your means. I read that personal debt, in the U.S., amounted to $14.6
>>>>> trillion in the spring of 2021, according to the Federal Reserve.
>>>>> That is $43,624.30 for every man, woman and child in the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> And it might be noted that when you borrow money you pay for it twice.
>>>>> Once in the interest you pay for the loan and once for the lost
>>>>> interest you could have made if you had saved the money. Calculate the
>>>>> interest on a credit card :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> But then, I grew up in a traditional New England family where
>>>>> borrowing was very much a sin. My father borrowed once in his life,
>>>>> $1,000 from my mother's father to buy a piece of woodland. He then
>>>>> chopped down some pine trees had them milled and built the first house
>>>>> I can remember living in.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, poor me. I had no trees to chop down and so was forced to rely on
>>>>> savings.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly agree with the overall philosophy. It matches mine, and my
>>>> behavior.
>>>>
>>>> But ISTM saving may be easy for, say, someone in the military who is
>>>> provided with housing and food. But those benefits are very uncommon for
>>>> normal workers. (We have friend in the State Department whose housing is
>>>> paid for when they are overseas, which is most of the time. Partly
>>>> because of that, plus things like hazard pay, they are doing very, very
>>>> well financially.)
>>> Yes, you are at least partially correct. It is easy when you live in
>>> the Barracks and eat in the Mess Hall. The technique was on payday as
>>> soon as you were paid you went straight down to the Base Exchange
>>> (general store sort of place) and you bought 3 cakes of soap, a tube
>>> of toothpaste, one canister of shoe polish and 3 cartons of
>>> cigarettes.
>>>
>>> What ever was left you spent that night "down town" and lived happily
>>> for the rest of the month (:-)
>>>
>>> But I got married. Tain't the same (:-)
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, I'd expect an engineer for an oil company would get a
>>>> reasonably high salary, and have difficulty spending it in many low
>>>> income countries. Hard to spend = easy to save.
>>> Don't kid yourself. It is just as easy to spend money in a low income
>>> country as in the U.S. A friend came in one day sporting a gold Rolex
>>> watch and I asked him, "where'd you steal the watch?" and he told me
>>> he had bought it from a bloke in a bar who'd been out of work for a
>>> couple of months.Paid $200.
>>>> enough to know what he made. It was not exorbitant. But he lived in a
>>>> student dorm while his family lived in Bangladesh and did absolutely
>>>> nothing but work. He returned home every semester break. He talked about
>>>> his immense house and his wife's servants. Me, I always lived frugally,
>>>> but I couldn't afford servants.
>>> It used to be that way in Thailand. You moved into a neighborhood and
>>> mentioned to the maid next door that you might be looking for help and
>>> next morning when you looked out there'd be a whole line of girls
>>> squatting on the sidewalk looking for a job.
>>>
>>> Today, it is different. "Job as a housemaid?" "Naw, I can get a job
>>> down the fish packing plant. Only 8 hours a day".
>>> Unemployment in Thailand, before Covid was in the 1% neighborhood and
>>> there were an estimated 3 million "guest workers" here.
>>>> Short version: Circumstances differ widely. I don't believe the poor are
>>>> typically poor because they are blowing huge wads of money.
>>
>> John, I think the point Frank is trying to make is the poor do not have a lot of money. They work for minimum wage. Earn a subsistence salary at best. So they cannot have a "huge wads of money" to blow. Because they do not have "huge wads of money". Their money supply is minimal. That is one of the often talked about points of poverty. You cannot get ahead if everything you earn is used up just to maintain subsistence. To invest, or get ahead, or even to start a new business with an idea you have, requires extra money from somewhere. If you never ever have extra, then you remain poor.
>>
>> Now, I am not saying some of the poor don't keep themselves in poverty with their spending habits. Some, many, waste money on such things as cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets, eating out, and other wasteful things. But all of these bad things are still done with minimal amounts of money. A few hundred dollars. Not "huge wads of money".
>>
>> I am not saying a smart, resourceful, poor person cannot get out of poverty by not wasting a few hundred dollars each month. Save a few hundred dollars each month and after a few years you will have a few extra thousand dollars and then be able to invest or start a profitable endeavor. Yeah. But, if you are making well above minimum wage, then you can probably save a few thousand extra each month, and invest it or start a new endeavor after only a few months. Not after a few years. Big difference.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Perhaps so, perhaps no. I saved half my salary for the 20 years I
>>> spent in the Military and sometimes more then half working as a
>>> civilian. I worked two jobs for quite a few years... not because I had
>>> to but because I wanted to. I'm not bragging, I was doing what I
>>> wanted to do, not what I had to do. I used to work weekends in a
>>> gunsmith shop and evenings I used to build high accuracy "varmint
>>> rifles"... because I enjoyed it.
>>>
>>> As for the poor, I really don't know. I've only known one really poor
>>> chap. The welfare had gotten him some sort of free housing for he and
>>> his wife and a clapped old 2nd hand car to get around in and a job at
>>> the Gunsmith shop where I was working. I mentioned,something about
>>> paying attention and learning a trade and he told me straight out that
>>> he didn't "see no need" as he was getting along "just nice". Making
>>> minimum salary living in subsidized housing.
>>>
>>> I've always wondered how many "poor" are just like that.
>>> --
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> John B.
>
>Half the country pay zero FIT. The rate is 10% on the first
>$10,000 adjusted net income. The standard personal deduction
>is $12,900.
>
>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).

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%.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 13:44:35 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

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

Yup, I certainly counted wrong that time.

But the basic premise remains,If you make 100,000 and I make a million
is income disparity important? Look at Frank, he says he has quite a
large housing lot, decent house, just bought a $30,000 auto, talks as
though he is happily married. Is the fact that, say Jeff Boozes, has
an income umpteen times higher then Frank's of any concern to either?

Thus my argument that income, as a single factor, may well not tell
the whole story.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:34:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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?
>

Ah yes, the benefits of bicycling.

Like me? Broke my pelvis on a bicycle and need a cane to walk now? Or
Tommy, busted his head and was, by his own mention, insane for two
years? Or the nearly 1,000 deaths a year? Or the 130,000 injured. or
the costs of bicycle injuries and deaths from crashes typically exceed
$23 billion in the United States each year.
https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html

Benefits? You must be joking.
--
Cheers,

John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:34:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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?
>>
>
> Ah yes, the benefits of bicycling.
>
> Like me? Broke my pelvis on a bicycle and need a cane to walk now? Or
> Tommy, busted his head and was, by his own mention, insane for two
> years? Or the nearly 1,000 deaths a year? Or the 130,000 injured. or
> the costs of bicycle injuries and deaths from crashes typically exceed
> $23 billion in the United States each year.
> https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html
>
> Benefits? You must be joking.

So are you just here for the arguments?

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".
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

Or move to a country where their policies match you own.

Or just sit there and bitch about it..

Option one and two Will likely solve your problems. Option three
certainly will not.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:02:46 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 7:17:15 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:29:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>> >On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>> >>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they were required
>> >>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago experience with
>> >>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the letter of the
>> >>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>> >>>
>> >>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm not saying the ultra-rich
>> >>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are grossly faulty. And they are
>> >>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and paying to have the laws re-written
>> >>> in their favor.
>> >>>
>> >>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and read it over and over until
>> >>> you understand.
>> >>>
>> >>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >>
>> >> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a democracy
>> >> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one assumes,
>> >> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will be changed.
>> >
>> >How naive!
>> >
>> >The American legislative processes have been systematically corrupted by
>> >those with huge amounts of money to spend. To treat the most currently
>> >relevant example: A majority of Americans consistently says more gun
>> >control is needed. Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my
>> >state) actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>> >
>> >Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people? Hmm. Let's see
>> >who gets money from the NRA:
>> >https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>> >
>> >That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are blatantly
>> >open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy campaign "donations," gun
>> >manufacturers lobby for easier gun sales; the super-wealthy lobby for
>> >tax breaks for the super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for
>> >protection from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>> >companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And Republicans
>> >appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.

>> But Frank, that is how a "democracy" works, and has always worked
>> since the Athenian days, and undoubtedly always will.
>> And you can argue that water runs up hill, "until the cows come home"
>> and it won't change thing one little bit.
>>
>> One might ask whether, in a democracy, one should listen to Frank rave
>> about guns.... or the approximately 100 million that own a gun.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>But John, according to my Google research, only 4 in 10 people live in a household with access to a gun. That is 40%. I am sure you realize the democracies work by being over 50%. So the majority of Americans are NOT gun owners. How does a democracy work?
>https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
>https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx

Yes, and I think I've mentioned the number in other posts. I think the
number of gun owners is usually counted as about 30%, or 1/3 of 334
million, or thereabouts. Your last reference says 32%
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:38:40 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:39:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 13:55:31 -0700 (PDT), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@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?
>>
>> And even more complex, "what is a bribe?" U.S law allows (I read)
>> contributories by individuals is limited to $2,900 per election. If
>> the 2,999 chaps that work for me want to each make a maximum donation
>> to the campaign of Mickey Mouse for president it is perfectly legal,'
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>John, you might not understand how political contributions work in the USA. What you state as the per person maximum may be right. But that does not in any way at all restrict a special interest group from donating million upon millions into advertising for the candidate you gave the $2900 to. But according to US laws you are not really giving the millions spent on advertising on the candidate's behalf to the candidate. So its all perfectly legal.

You are correct I was trying to simplify things. But my premise is
accurate, it is legal for every one of your companies to donate to a
political candidate.

So, "what is a bribe"

You go in the store and buy a pound of carrots. You give the man the
money and he gives you your carrots.

You give your wife's brother a job... because she nags you.

You hit the Cop a $20 so he doesn't give you the ticket so you don't
lose your license and have to ride to work with your brother in law.

If they just pass that law I'll be making another $10 million a month.

Decisions, decisions.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:34:41 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

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

And, no, not many mass shootings happen without a gun. But, is it the
fact that 22 people were killed or that a gun was used that is so
terrifying?.

If it is numbers then Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, 19 of whom
were children, and injured more than 680 others. Using fertilizer and
diesel fuel. The Boston Marathon... diesel and fertilizer again.
Killing three people and injuring hundreds of others, 264 civilians
were treated at 27 local hospitals, and 17 who lost limbs

So the fertilizer scores 171 deaths and nearly 1,000 injuries and guns
score 22 killed, no injured.

Shouldn't fertilized be controlled?
--
Cheers,

John B.

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.

On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:05:59 PM UTC-7, Ralph Barone wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:34:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members while some
> >>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a paltry 4% of
> >>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker? Really?
> >>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
> >>>>
> >>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party can usually
> >>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S. Senate rules
> >>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And Republicans in the
> >>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
> >>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
> >>>>
> >>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And regarding the
> >>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA: Even a
> >>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But they're scammed
> >>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example) absolutely convinced
> >>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
> >>>>
> >>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that machine working,
> >>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
> >>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when you've got a big
> >>>> mansion, right?
> >>>
> >>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who die in car
> >>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing that masks and
> >>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
> >>
> >>
> >> Write this down and memorize it: "Consider benefits vs. detriments."
> >> You seem to forget the concept within minutes.
> >>
> >> We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the benefits of
> >> bicycling. As I've often said, every study on the topic has found the
> >> life extending benefits of bicycling far outweigh its minimal risks. Do
> >> you really need the citations again?
> >>
> >
> > Ah yes, the benefits of bicycling.
> >
> > Like me? Broke my pelvis on a bicycle and need a cane to walk now? Or
> > Tommy, busted his head and was, by his own mention, insane for two
> > years? Or the nearly 1,000 deaths a year? Or the 130,000 injured. or
> > the costs of bicycle injuries and deaths from crashes typically exceed
> > $23 billion in the United States each year.
> > https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html
> >
> > Benefits? You must be joking.
> So are you just here for the arguments?

And if there's no argument to be had, he starts them with the sum of his knowledge being what ever he can Google. Plus like Frank, there is absolutely nothing that he isn't perfectly comfortable lying about. I never said I was insane nor even hinted at it. I said that I had lost all short term memory and was having seizures. But John likes to show his lost manhood by lying.. The one bright ray of light is that he has said many times how sick he is and very soon what he thinks to be nightly heartburn will show itself to be God knocking on his door. All the better because he denies God.

On 5/29/2022 1:29 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 19:34:41 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 8:21:02 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:48:05 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>>>>>> were required
>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>>>>> experience with
>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>>>>>> letter of the
>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>>>>>> read it over and over until
>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen attentively,
>>>>>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the effect
>>>>>> on her husband's portfolio.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she doesn't
>>>>> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
>>>> Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm crime?
>>> Well, just like the "Black Lives Matter" thing, it is an easy target.
>>>
>>> See, them there fellows got guns! See Guns kill people! Must be them
>>> there fellows with them guns!
>>
>> Down in Texas on Tuesday an 18 year old boy with a gun murdered 19 little kids and 2 adults. He used a gun. Not too many mass shootings happen without a gun. So I would say your statement of "them there fellows with them guns" is pretty accurate. They/him murdered the children. And adults.
>>
> And he was "executed"
>
> And, no, not many mass shootings happen without a gun. But, is it the
> fact that 22 people were killed or that a gun was used that is so
> terrifying?.
>
> If it is numbers then Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people, 19 of whom
> were children, and injured more than 680 others. Using fertilizer and
> diesel fuel. The Boston Marathon... diesel and fertilizer again.
> Killing three people and injuring hundreds of others, 264 civilians
> were treated at 27 local hospitals, and 17 who lost limbs
>
> So the fertilizer scores 171 deaths and nearly 1,000 injuries and guns
> score 22 killed, no injured.
>
> Shouldn't fertilized be controlled?

Benefits vs. detriments, John. Why is that simple concept so far beyond
your understanding?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@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
>>>>> <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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
> 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.
>
> 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%.
>
> 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".

All those points but one have been thoroughly answered in previous
discussions. To cut to the chase on most of them, please read up on the
history of the AR platform. Read about the company's objectives and main
intended market when it was still on the drawing board.

(For those too lazy to research, or too afraid of learning facts opposed
to their views, Armalite wanted to sell the guns to the U.S. armed
forces for use in combat. The design was intended for firefights.)

Now to the one remaining point not previously discussed: Why do cops
carry pistols?

American cops carry pistols because this country is awash in guns. In
2020, at least 2700 cops were assaulted with firearms. At least 59 were
killed. Because of our ludicrously lax gun laws, police have a need to
be able to shoot back. Which they do, far more than the police in any
similar nation.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
it?

Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
points are.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

In some fanciful ideal world, that might be true. But there have been
literally hundreds of mass shootings already this year. Shootings in
schools are horribly common, and threats of them are even more common.
The U.S. gun murder rate is horribly high when compared with other
similar countries. Obviously, existing data clearly shows what laws we
now have are insufficient. Countries with wildly different (and better)
laws have almost zero such problems.

When was the last mass shooting of schoolkids in Thailand?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/28/2022 11:54 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:34:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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?
>>
>
> Ah yes, the benefits of bicycling.
>
> Like me? Broke my pelvis on a bicycle and need a cane to walk now? Or
> Tommy, busted his head and was, by his own mention, insane for two
> years? Or the nearly 1,000 deaths a year? Or the 130,000 injured. or
> the costs of bicycle injuries and deaths from crashes typically exceed
> $23 billion in the United States each year.
> https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html
>
> Benefits? You must be joking.

I never know what to say to a person who values two anecdotes over
mountains of properly collected and analyzed data. The intellectual gap
between us is too great for meaningful communication.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 12:05 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 21:34:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> 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?
>>>
>>
>> Ah yes, the benefits of bicycling.
>>
>> Like me? Broke my pelvis on a bicycle and need a cane to walk now? Or
>> Tommy, busted his head and was, by his own mention, insane for two
>> years? Or the nearly 1,000 deaths a year? Or the 130,000 injured. or
>> the costs of bicycle injuries and deaths from crashes typically exceed
>> $23 billion in the United States each year.
>> https://www.cdc.gov/transportationsafety/bicycle/index.html
>>
>> Benefits? You must be joking.
>
> So are you just here for the arguments?

I think that's obvious.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
issues their military with .223 repeaters.

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

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

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.

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

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