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

Eugene Stoner developed it as a civilian sporting rifle.

Are you confusing it with M-16 or AR-10 full auto military
rifles?

Carabinieri are currently carrying Beretta PMX:
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/01/26/italian-carabinieri-orders-beretta-pmx-smgs/

Beretta's PMXs civilian version is NOT the same thing:
https://www.gunsweek.com/en/pistols/news/beretta-pmxs-semi-automatic-pistol-caliber-carbine?qt-sidebar_tabs=0

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

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

Yes, that's right. And I've been bitching about cycling
public policy and 'infrastructure' and 'facilities' and
whatnot for decades. How's all that working out?

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

Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 5/29/2022 12:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>> Different countries do many things differently. Mexico for example
>> doesn't have a medical prescription requirement. I know USAians who
>> cross the border to buy medications dirt cheap- the same product- with
>> much less trouble and expense.
>
> I certainly agree that different countries do things differently. If we
> were smart, we'd view that as an opportunity for a "natural experiment."
> That is, we'd look at what works and what doesn't work, by comparing
> results between countries. On many issues we discuss here and elsewhere,
> the data's easily available.
>
> Somehow, that's not a popular strategy among many.
>

Data’s not fun when it doesn’t indicate what you so fervently believe - on
either side.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
more.

Shades of Tommy, wouldn't you say?

But the Henry rifle wad admired for it's ability to shoot many times
without reloading. From the Wikki:
The Henry was adopted in small quantities by the Union in the Civil
War, favored for its greater firepower than the standard-issue
carbine. Many later found their way West, notably in the hands of a
few of the Sioux and Cheyenne in their defeat of Custer's U.S. Cavalry
troops in June 1876.

Or isn't the killing of 268 troopers sufficient to qualify as a "mass
shooting"?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:19:41 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

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

Years ago I was introduced to a "car thief" in Los Angeles. After he
was assured that I was a "good guy" he was quite open about his
"trade". He apparently specialized in Chevy Corvettes and would even
take orders for specific colors.

Anyway, when I expressed my surprise at his trade I said something
like, "But aren't you worried about going to jail?" He, quite
earnestly replied that "unless you are caught and go to court at least
three times there is almost no chance of spending any time in jail"

And that was.... more then 50 years ago.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:03:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

Certainly true - different strokes for different folks, I guess the
saying goes.

But no, according to the news, there has been one mass shooting in the
history of Thailand and that was an Army Senor
Sergeant who got upset over some sort of deal on a house he bought. He
checked a gun(S) out of the army supply and went to town, first to a
Buddhist Wat (temple) and shot some passerby's and then moved to a
large shopping center and went in and shot some more. 29 killed and 58
wounded.

Of course the usual excuse made by "outsiders" for Thailand's lack of
mass shootings is "Oh! But you have gun laws", which is certainly
true. But way back when people "went to the movies" and conditioning
hadn't been invented, my wife and I went to the movies and when the
show was over we sat there to let the mob get out first before we got
up and as the sweat stained mob crowded up the isles my wife commented
that "look! they all have a gun!" And yes, nearly every man, as he
walked by you could see, in his sweat stained shirt, the outline of a
pistol shoved in the back of his belt.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:14:49 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

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

Ah but it sounds so thrilling, far more exciting and attention
grabbing then just "gun". Never mind that all this "optimizing" is, in
reality, simply "innovations" dating back over a 100 years or more.

But then, reality" is something in the far off distance to some.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 14:45:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

Well, if you are nose down, arse in the air, feverishly beavering
away, why the loud cry's of anguish" Ohhhhh he's got more money then I
do (:(

After all, you went to collage; Jeff Bezos went to collage; you got a
job; Jeff Bezos got a job; you pranced around at the front of the
class room; Jeff Bezos recognizing the potential of the Internet and
started a mail order book shop in his garage with his wife's help..

In short, he didn't do anything that you couldn't have done. The
difference seems to be he got up on his hind legs and did something.

And now you flaunt your jealousy.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 14:25:58 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/29/2022 1:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/29/2022 11:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2022 2:40 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:48 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:15 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:44 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/2022 10:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B.
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank
>>>>>>>>> KrygowskiÂ
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that
>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>> were required
>>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>>>>>> experience with
>>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> letter of the
>>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this:
>>>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> read it over and over until
>>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Happy to help. Call (202) 225-4965
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm sure Ms Pelosi will take your call.listen
>>>>>>> attentively,
>>>>>>> and set your thoughts into action regardless of the
>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>> on her husband's portfolio.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not trying to canonize Pelosi. But at least she
>>>>>> doesn't
>>>>>> seem to take donations from merchants of carnage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And just why am I being called a merchant of carnage?
>>>>> Care to reference any NRA member involved in a firearm
>>>>> crime?
>>>>
>>>> Please don't pretend there are no NRA members committing gun
>>>> crimes.
>>>>
>>>> But more relevant, the NRA and manufacturers of deadly
>>>> combat-optimized weaponry support each other heavily and
>>>> mutually. Our nation's obscene mass shootings and gun death
>>>> numbers are the direct result.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 'Combat-optimized' my ass. There's no nation on earth who
>>> issues their military with .223 repeaters.
>>
>> Do you not know the history of the AR design?? Really??
>>
>>
>
>Eugene Stoner developed it as a civilian sporting rifle.
>
>Are you confusing it with M-16 or AR-10 full auto military
>rifles?
>
>Carabinieri are currently carrying Beretta PMX:
>https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/01/26/italian-carabinieri-orders-beretta-pmx-smgs/
>
>Beretta's PMXs civilian version is NOT the same thing:
>https://www.gunsweek.com/en/pistols/news/beretta-pmxs-semi-automatic-pistol-caliber-carbine?qt-sidebar_tabs=0

Read
https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2022/5/25/how-alternative-facts-threaten-us-democracy
Admittedly Al Jazeera but certainly explains Franks ranting and raving
in his attempt to prove 2+2=5, as in George Orwell’s novel, "1984".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:43:44 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

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

See there Andrew, you don no nottin. See Frank adores bicycles and
thus bicycles are wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, while equally Frank
fears firearms and this firearms are Bad! Bad! Bad!
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:25:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

Your reading comprehension seems to have missed a beat here. I wrote
(see above)

"anyone naive enough to doubt that those who have the ability to do so
will NOT attempt to influence the making of laws that apply to them?"

What in the world does that have to do with whether or not "American
pharmaceutical companies to exert heavy influence in favor of laws
allowing them to reap huge profits"?

In fact I predicted that they would.

But, as they say, "Turnabout is fair play", so what justifies your
argument that the 1st amendment should be thrown out or that the tax
laws should be changed?

Of course you will argue that "but I'm right!" But that is a wholly
individualistic attitude, isn't it. So Frank is for tax increase for
the rich and Jeff Bezos and George Soros will disagree with you and
as you live in a democracy you are outvoted, aren't you.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 15:10:56 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

But Frank, that is democracy, isn't it. Or at least the version under
which you live. You all elect the people to govern you. So you all
have to live with the outcome.

Ah well, I suppose under the, would you call it the "New Democracy"?,
you first hold the election and then when your guy loses you riot and
shout "No! No!"
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:23:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/28/2022 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B.
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>>>>> were required
>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>>>> experience with
>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>>>>> letter of the
>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>>>>> read it over and over until
>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>
>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
>>>>> democracy
>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
>>>>> assumes,
>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>>>>> be changed.
>>>>
>>>> How naive!
>>>>
>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>
>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just
>>>> fine.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you
>>> decry and moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968,
>>> 1986 extensions.
>>>
>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in
>>> the same way that people with outstanding warrants get new
>>> driver's licenses and new charge cards. That's like
>>> advocating 'mental health services'; money is spent,
>>> nothing happens after that.
>>
>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is
>> imperfect, so absolutely nothing should be done." By that
>> logic, we should repeal laws making it illegal to steal from
>> bike shops; because obviously, people steal from bike shops
>> despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
>>
>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move
>> would be to improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect
>> that a person with a background of deadly assault and
>> currently under multiple restraining orders should be able
>> to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge arises.
>> That's absolutely nuts.
>>
>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They
>>> have less cash to throw around with today's membership
>>> (newer firearms organizations are growing rapidly. NRA is
>>> not).
>>
>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant
>> to me. And judging by the behavior of the politicians who
>> received them, the totals are disgustingly effective.
>>
>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
>>> rights, and only that.
>>
>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not
>> carved into Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted
>> much, much differently. Until the NRA-backed turn to
>> national insanity, there was no general policy claiming any
>> nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized for mass
>> killing.
>>
>> The second amendment does not say "The right to murder
>> groups of schoolkids shall not be infringed."
>>
>
>There's no one rational arguing for repeal of laws against
>felon in possession or firearms for lunatics. For years a
>majority of citizens, firearms owners and the NRA officially
>and loudly have begged for enforcement of those laws. That
>plea falls on deaf ears.
>
>Peruse any overnight news, any day, in any large jurisdiction:
>
>https://cwbchicago.com/2022/05/prosecutors-reject-carjacking-charges-chicago-judge-asks-why.html
>
>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.

Good Lord! I just read the other day about a delay of execution of a
guy that murdered a 8 year old and raped a 10 year old.... in 1976.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.
>
Ayup.... now look at the 1903 Springfield rifle, designed by the
military as the standard military fire arm and chambered for the NEW
More Powerful 30-06 cartridge. That is a military weapon is designed
to be used to kill people.

It was used by the U.S. Military from about 1903 until, I believe the
last were delivered to the U.S. services in 1944 but were use buy
various foreign countries, the French, for example until the Vietnam
thing.

On 5/29/2022 8:20 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:23:56 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/2022 2:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B.
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank KrygowskiÂ
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>>>>>> were required
>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>>>>> experience with
>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>>>>>> letter of the
>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>>>>>> read it over and over until
>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
>>>>>> democracy
>>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
>>>>>> assumes,
>>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>
>>>>> How naive!
>>>>>
>>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
>>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
>>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
>>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
>>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
>>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
>>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
>>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
>>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
>>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
>>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
>>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
>>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just
>>>>> fine.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you
>>>> decry and moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968,
>>>> 1986 extensions.
>>>>
>>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in
>>>> the same way that people with outstanding warrants get new
>>>> driver's licenses and new charge cards. That's like
>>>> advocating 'mental health services'; money is spent,
>>>> nothing happens after that.
>>>
>>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is
>>> imperfect, so absolutely nothing should be done." By that
>>> logic, we should repeal laws making it illegal to steal from
>>> bike shops; because obviously, people steal from bike shops
>>> despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
>>>
>>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move
>>> would be to improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect
>>> that a person with a background of deadly assault and
>>> currently under multiple restraining orders should be able
>>> to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge arises.
>>> That's absolutely nuts.
>>>
>>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They
>>>> have less cash to throw around with today's membership
>>>> (newer firearms organizations are growing rapidly. NRA is
>>>> not).
>>>
>>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant
>>> to me. And judging by the behavior of the politicians who
>>> received them, the totals are disgustingly effective.
>>>
>>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
>>>> rights, and only that.
>>>
>>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not
>>> carved into Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted
>>> much, much differently. Until the NRA-backed turn to
>>> national insanity, there was no general policy claiming any
>>> nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized for mass
>>> killing.
>>>
>>> The second amendment does not say "The right to murder
>>> groups of schoolkids shall not be infringed."
>>>
>>
>> There's no one rational arguing for repeal of laws against
>> felon in possession or firearms for lunatics. For years a
>> majority of citizens, firearms owners and the NRA officially
>> and loudly have begged for enforcement of those laws. That
>> plea falls on deaf ears.
>>
>> Peruse any overnight news, any day, in any large jurisdiction:
>>
>> https://cwbchicago.com/2022/05/prosecutors-reject-carjacking-charges-chicago-judge-asks-why.html
>>
>> 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.
>
> Good Lord! I just read the other day about a delay of execution of a
> guy that murdered a 8 year old and raped a 10 year old.... in 1976.
>

Criminals have rights. Citizens not so much.

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

On 5/29/2022 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
> Ayup.... now look at the 1903 Springfield rifle, designed by the
> military as the standard military fire arm and chambered for the NEW
> More Powerful 30-06 cartridge. That is a military weapon is designed
> to be used to kill people.
>
> It was used by the U.S. Military from about 1903 until, I believe the
> last were delivered to the U.S. services in 1944 but were use buy
> various foreign countries, the French, for example until the Vietnam
> thing.
>
> Could a rifle be more a military weapon, designed to kill people? Used
> by military forces for 50 years.
>
> Why aren't you hollering and screaming about them. After all while the
> 1903 is no longer made similar type and caliber rifles are still being
> made and marketed.
>

On Sun, 29 May 2022 11:26:16 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/29/2022 1:43 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 20:17:56 -0700 (PDT), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, May 28, 2022 at 9:19:46 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 15:54:57 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 1:06 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 10:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 12:03 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 20:20:50 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 7:14:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 May 2022 12:26:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trove-of-never-before-seen-records-reveal-how-the-wealthiest-avoid-income-tax
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But Frank, all those rich folks paid the taxed that they
>>>>>>>>>> were required
>>>>>>>>>> to pay under U.S. tax laws. In fact, from my years ago
>>>>>>>>>> experience with
>>>>>>>>>> H&R Block I will bet you that they actually followed the
>>>>>>>>>> letter of the
>>>>>>>>>> law closer then most poor folk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John, you're having great trouble understanding this: I'm
>>>>>>>>> not saying the ultra-rich
>>>>>>>>> are violating tax laws. I'm saying those tax laws are
>>>>>>>>> grossly faulty. And they are
>>>>>>>>> faulty largely because of the ultra-rich lobbying and
>>>>>>>>> paying to have the laws re-written
>>>>>>>>> in their favor.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> American tax laws need to be changed. Write that down and
>>>>>>>>> read it over and over until
>>>>>>>>> you understand.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well Frank, as I've said, innumerable times. You live in a
>>>>>>>> democracy
>>>>>>>> where the deciding factor is "the majority count". So, one
>>>>>>>> assumes,
>>>>>>>> when the majority decide the laws need changing they will
>>>>>>>> be changed.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How naive!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The American legislative processes have been systematically
>>>>>>> corrupted by those with huge amounts of money to spend. To
>>>>>>> treat the most currently relevant example: A majority of
>>>>>>> Americans consistently says more gun control is needed.
>>>>>>> Republicans consistently prevent that, or (as in my state)
>>>>>>> actively pass laws to _reduce_ gun control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why would they ignore the consistent will of the people?
>>>>>>> Hmm. Let's see who gets money from the NRA:
>>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's an illustration on just one issue. American laws are
>>>>>>> blatantly open to this sort of bribery. By use of heavy
>>>>>>> campaign "donations," gun manufacturers lobby for easier gun
>>>>>>> sales; the super-wealthy lobby for tax breaks for the
>>>>>>> super-wealthy; pharmaceutical companies lobby for protection
>>>>>>> from manufacturers of inexpensive pharmaceuticals; oil
>>>>>>> companies lobby against non-oil energy sources, etc. And
>>>>>>> Republicans appointed to the courts say this is all just fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Go read the 1945 Firearms Act. It bars[1] many things you decry and
>>>>>> moreover with greater restrictions in the 1968, 1986 extensions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Background checks? Vicious murders pass those regularly in the same way
>>>>>> that people with outstanding warrants get new driver's licenses and new
>>>>>> charge cards. That's like advocating 'mental health services'; money is
>>>>>> spent, nothing happens after that.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're back to your frequent theme: "Everything is imperfect, so
>>>>> absolutely nothing should be done." By that logic, we should repeal laws
>>>>> making it illegal to steal from bike shops; because obviously, people
>>>>> steal from bike shops despite the current laws, so those laws don't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the laws you cite are imperfect, the truly logical move would be to
>>>>> improve them. As it is, you're saying in effect that a person with a
>>>>> background of deadly assault and currently under multiple restraining
>>>>> orders should be able to buy whatever gun he wants whenever the urge
>>>>> arises. That's absolutely nuts.
>>>>>
>>>>>> And NRA is a pissant player in political lobbying. They have less cash
>>>>>> to throw around with today's membership (newer firearms organizations
>>>>>> are growing rapidly. NRA is not).
>>>>>
>>>>> The totals I linked in a couple threads don't look pissant to me. And
>>>>> judging by the behavior of the politicians who received them, the totals
>>>>> are disgustingly effective.
>>>>>
>>>>>> They do one thing, promote individual second amendment
>>>>>> rights, and only that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's simplistic nonsense. The second amendment was not carved into
>>>>> Tom's stone tablets, and was long interpreted much, much differently.
>>>>> Until the NRA-backed turn to national insanity, there was no general
>>>>> policy claiming any nutcase needed and was allowed firearms optimized
>>>>> for mass killing.
>>>>
>>>> You keep harping on that subject, "firearms optimized for mass
>>>> killing".
>>>>
>>>> But, do you know what you are talking about?
>>>>
>>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>>>
>>> Tubular magazine. One of the first. Along with the Spencer. With the Henry it had the tubular magazine under the barrel. With the Spencer it had the magazine tube inside the stock. Spencer held 7. To load them, you had to open the tubular magazine and insert one bullet at a time into the magazine. Drop them down in the tube. Somewhat slow. I have two 22 caliber guns at my house and both have tubular magazines. It takes a little while to load them.
>>>
>>> One very important point I should make. The magazine on the Henry and the Spencer, were attached to the gun. They were NOT separate magazines. You could not just load a whole new fully loaded magazine into the gun. You had to reload the attached, included magazine on the gun itself. Having a detached magazine makes the reloading much much much faster. I do not think your bringing up the Henry magazine is very practical for your argument.
>>>
>> Well, yes. but is that really material? Oh! I can reload so quickly.
>> Perhaps yes and perhaps no. But it certainly is a subject that the
>> anti gunners (for want of a better name) go on about.
>>
>> But more to the point, perhaps, is that looking at the Wikki it seems
>> that "mass shootings", 31 cases, 1948 - 2022, and "rampage shooting",
>> 100 cases 1863 - 2021, are fairly common in the U.S. and in most of
>> the cases the shooter is killed by the police while in Thailand I
>> believe there has been only one in the 50 years I've lived here.
>>
>> While admittedly it is hard to compare, Thailand has about 1/5th the
>> population of the U.S., if one goes on that basis then Thailand would
>> have had something like 26 cases of mass shooting, but have had only
>> 1.
>>
>> The anti gunners will cry, "Gun Laws! Gun Laws!" but the truth is that
>> guns are readily available here. Way back when, we were living sort of
>> "out in the country" and I mentioned "maybe a gun would be good" and
>> my wife "went to town" and came back with a 12 gauge pistol. No fuss
>> at all. And reading the news one on one shootings are common.
>>
>> So, why the difference?
>>
>> Another point that seems puzzling is that looking at the list of
>> shootings nearly all have ended in the perpetrator being killed by the
>> police. So, effectively, a mass shooting appears to be an exercise in
>> suicide, so to speak. I shoot a bunch of people and the police shoot
>> me!
>>
>> Are people in the U.S. suicide prone?
>>
>
>
>Some deaths are not less tragic, not less horrible, not less
>important but a heck of a lot less 'newsy'
>
>https://news.wttw.com/2021/12/04/new-docuseries-shines-light-chicago-strangulation-cases

On 5/29/2022 12:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> If you want to obsess on features, AS with most issues, there's data available. We could discuss it. But that's getting pretty far into the weeds even for this group. killed 14, wounded 31
> mostly[1] with a bolt-action .30 cal.
>

I remember that. Several relevant facts:

He was a highly trained, excellent marksman. And he was shooting at long
distances from a highly elevated position. A typical gun nut would not
have the skill to do what he did.

And AFAIK, AR-style guns were not sold to the public back then. If they
were, he probably would have done the same amount of harm in less than
five minutes, by just walking into a crowded room and blasting away. No
real skill necessary; the gun design makes it easy. It's optimized for
rapid firing at relatively close targets.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 29 May 2022 20:55:57 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 5/29/2022 8:42 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:51:37 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>> Ayup.... now look at the 1903 Springfield rifle, designed by the
>> military as the standard military fire arm and chambered for the NEW
>> More Powerful 30-06 cartridge. That is a military weapon is designed
>> to be used to kill people.
>>
>> It was used by the U.S. Military from about 1903 until, I believe the
>> last were delivered to the U.S. services in 1944 but were use buy
>> various foreign countries, the French, for example until the Vietnam
>> thing.
>>
>> Could a rifle be more a military weapon, designed to kill people? Used
>> by military forces for 50 years.
>>
>> Why aren't you hollering and screaming about them. After all while the
>> 1903 is no longer made similar type and caliber rifles are still being
>> made and marketed.
>>
>
>Springfield 30-06? As obsolete as 2x10-speed bicycles.
>
>Sign up for a surplus actual US Army M1 Garand chambered in
>30-06 OR in .308 (more ballistic energy than a wimpy .223):
>
>https://thecmp.org/sales-and-service/m1-garand/

On 5/29/2022 9:57 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> More on mass shootings. I googled it and the first mass shooting, the
> unprovoked killing of individuals apparently with no connection to the
> shooter, seems to have taken place in 1949. Previous there have been
> killings of large numbers but for "a reason" whether a good or bad
> reason. And the list of school shootings seems to start in 2000.
>
> What happened for the previous ~160 years?

Mostly, technology. Watch the next 45 seconds of this:
https://youtu.be/a9UFyNy-rw4?t=419

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

Actually, I'm among those who say it's been fine for the 50+ years I've
been riding. During that time, I followed the rules of the road for all
vehicles. I did very well.

It seems to me that since the League of American Bicyclists went crazy
begging for segregated facilities, things have gotten worse. We've
gotten really weird designs installed, and people are wondering why my
friends and I don't want to use them.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 8:41 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 13:43:44 -0500, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2022 1:02 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2022 12:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2022 8:34 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2022 7:21 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 28 May 2022 11:46:34 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2022 5:41 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, as noted below, the NRA claims 5.5 million members
>>>>>>>> while some
>>>>>>>> 40% of the U.S. population has access to a gun. So is a
>>>>>>>> paltry 4% of
>>>>>>>> those with access to a gun a big mover and shaker?
>>>>>>>> Really?
>>>>>>>> https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/13/key-facts-about-americans-and-guns/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, the NRA is grossly over-influential.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The bicameral design of U.S. legislatures means one party
>>>>>>> can usually
>>>>>>> stop most legislation to which it strongly objects. U.S.
>>>>>>> Senate rules
>>>>>>> are more than usually restrictive that way. And
>>>>>>> Republicans in the
>>>>>>> Senate routinely stop any chance of enhanced gun control.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do they do that? Here's why, yet again:
>>>>>>> https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/national-rifle-assn/recipients?id=d000000082
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are literally in the pocket of the NRA. And
>>>>>>> regarding the
>>>>>>> relatively small portion of gun owners who donate to NRA:
>>>>>>> Even a
>>>>>>> majority of _those_ want more restrictions on guns. But
>>>>>>> they're scammed
>>>>>>> by the NRA's crooked top dogs who (for example)
>>>>>>> absolutely convinced
>>>>>>> them that Obama was going to take all their guns away.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There are enough of such gullible fools to keep that
>>>>>>> machine working,
>>>>>>> and keep LaPierre in his lavish lifestyle. See
>>>>>>> https://freepressokc.com/nra-executives-gold-plated-lifestyle-should-make-everyone-angry/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hey, who cares about a couple dozen schoolkids when
>>>>>>> you've got a big
>>>>>>> mansion, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or the ~800 a year that die on bicycles, or the 46,000 who
>>>>>> die in car
>>>>>> crashes or justify over 1 million Covid deaths, arguing
>>>>>> that masks and
>>>>>> vaccinations aren't necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Write this down and memorize it:Â "Consider benefits vs.
>>>>> detriments." You seem to forget the concept within minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>> We know - or at least I know, and you should know - the
>>>>> benefits of bicycling. As I've often said, every study on
>>>>> the topic has found the life extending benefits of bicycling
>>>>> far outweigh its minimal risks. Do you really need the
>>>>> citations again?
>>>>>
>>>>> By contrast: What are the benefits of letting ordinary (or
>>>>> worse than ordinary) people buy guns optimized for mass
>>>>> shooting and combat situations? What good does it do?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I agree with the principle to consider benefits. Your
>>>> average USAian considers bicycles and bicyclists to be of
>>>> zero utility to the nation. Now what?
>>>
>>> Those that don't value bicycles don't buy one. They get no
>>> benefits of bicycling, but bicycling by others imposes no
>>> harm on them.
>>>
>>> That's markedly different than the effect of
>>> combat-optimized guns on others. Nobody gets any real
>>> benefit (aside from getting to play with a macho toy) but
>>> many people suffer huge detriments, including loss of life.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's exactly right.
>>
>> If non-firearms owners decide policy for the rest, should
>> non-cyclists set policy for cyclists?
>>
>> for , "play with a macho toy", read, "Oh, Mister Euro Pro
>> wannabe with his fancy dee-railer bike".
>
> See there Andrew, you don no nottin. See Frank adores bicycles and
> thus bicycles are wonderful, wonderful, wonderful, while equally Frank
> fears firearms and this firearms are Bad! Bad! Bad!
>

The entire "benefits vs. detriments" concept is so far beyond you, John,
that you have to resort to cartoon mockery. And you're also failing at
processing data. It's not impressive.

The U.S. has the developed world's least stringent gun control laws. It
has the greatest proliferation of guns. It has millions of
combat-optimized guns in private hands, gun designs that are either
heavily restricted or totally banned in other countries. And it has the
highest number of gun deaths and mass murders.

And you can't grasp the correlation. Wow.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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

"In 1955, Stoner completed initial design work on the revolutionary
ArmaLite AR-10, a lightweight (7.25 lbs.) select-fire infantry rifle in
7.62×51mm NATO caliber. The AR-10 was submitted for rifle evaluation
trials to the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground.."

It became a "sporting rifle" after gun manufacturers realized there were
lots of Rambo wannabees.

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

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/29/2022 6:30 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2022 10:57:09 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/28/2022 10:19 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The only legal "assault rifles" to use the common term are restricted
>>> to "semi automatic", i.e., they fire once every time you pull the
>>> trigger. This system dates back to1895 in rifles and semi automatic
>>> pistols seem to date back to the 1800's also. Short barrel, "carbine"
>>> sort of thing. I can't find a specific date for first use but the term
>>> seems to dates back to the 1600's. Pistol grip? The first I can find
>>> is the Delvigne, patented in 1840. Large magazines.. The Henry Rifle,
>>> patented in 1860 had a 15 round magazine.
>> You should give a list of mass shootings in which the Henry rifle was
>> the main weapon used. That would really buttress your argument, wouldn't
>> it?
>>
>> Conversely, failure to provide such a list would indicate how weak your
>> points are.
>
> Good on yuh Frank. A nice end run about my dissertation pointing out
> that all your claims to modern rifles being, what was the word you
> used? Optimized for man killing? When in fact every thing about them
> is copied from weapons that have been available for a hundred years or
> more.

Show me a hundred year old rifle that weighs less than ten pounds and
can fire four or five rounds in one second. And that can be easily
fitted with a 50 round magazine. (While you're at it, explain why a
non-military person needs such capability. What are the advantages?)

>
> Shades of Tommy, wouldn't you say?
>
> But the Henry rifle wad admired for it's ability to shoot many times
> without reloading. From the Wikki:
> The Henry was adopted in small quantities by the Union in the Civil
> War, favored for its greater firepower than the standard-issue
> carbine. Many later found their way West, notably in the hands of a
> few of the Sioux and Cheyenne in their defeat of Custer's U.S. Cavalry
> troops in June 1876.
>
> Or isn't the killing of 268 troopers sufficient to qualify as a "mass
> shooting"?

So, you can't grasp the difference between a military battle and a mass
shooting of civilians.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sun, 29 May 2022 22:37:21 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

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

But Frank, the U.S. banned "assault rifles", these horribly dangerous,
optimized for killing, terrible things. From September 13, 1994. until
September 13, 2004,
So according to your logic then gun killings must have dropped. But do
some research
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Total_Deaths_in_US_Mass_Shootings_1982-2021.jpg
Note that these are "total gun deaths" and not the rate per.
and read all of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
From the introduction "Studies have shown the ban had little effect on
overall criminal activity, firearm homicides, and the lethality of gun
crimes."

It would appear that your theory has little, if any, validity in real
life.
--
Cheers,

John B.