On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>
>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>
> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened
> tip?
>
>

You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
other countries similar to it.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>
>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>
> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened tip?

Do you believe that we, outside the US, do not live in constant fear of
being attacked despite not have guns readily to hand? Not only do we have
less violent crime we also fear violent crime less.

Chris wrote:
> The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>
>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened tip?
>
> Do you believe that we, outside the US, do not live in constant fear of
> being attacked despite not have guns readily to hand? Not only do we have
> less violent crime we also fear violent crime less.
>

And that's exactly what makes you very special. Pray for the poor US.

On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>
>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>
>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened
>> tip?
>
> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
> other countries similar to it.

I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.

Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
enforcement is too far away to be protective?

A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
What should she have done?

--
Cheers, Bev
My house isn't a pigsty, it's an Immunity Enhancement Center.

On 2024-04-18 06:20:37 +0000, The Real Bev said:
> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>
>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened
>>> tip?
>>
>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>> other countries similar to it.
>
> I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
>
> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>
> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
> to a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks
> away. What should she have done?

Same as any women in the other 99% of countries that do not have
gun-obessessed idiots. :-\

Most people in the world have enough sense to know that owning a gun
achieves absolutely nothing, so don't want one and don't need one.
Americans (and it's only a loud-mouthed minority of those!) don't have
that simple sense.

The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>
>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the sharpened
>>> tip?
>>
>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>> other countries similar to it.
>
> I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
>
> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
> enforcement is too far away to be protective?

You do it by running away or trying to de-escalate the situation. Guns
don't improve the situation.

More significantly you improve the life choices for those who think violent
crime is their only option i.e. reduce poverty and inequality.

> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
> a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
> What should she have done?

That's terrible and a horrible crime that unfortunately happens in all
countries.

Now add 1-2 guns to the equation. Does increase or decrease the chances of
someone being shot? Given the perpetrator is the more agressive one it's
more like the victim will be shot even if it's her own gun.

On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>
>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
>>> sharpened tip?
>>
>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>> other countries similar to it.
>
> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>
> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
> enforcement is too far away to be protective?

The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
violent people easy access to weapons.

> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
> a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks away.
> What should she have done?

Same as in any modern and evolved country.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

The Real Bev wrote on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:20:37 -0700 :

>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>> other countries similar to it.
>
> I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.

Whoever said that the US is "more violent" is an idiot as many countries
have far more violence but even so, the purpose of guns being in the
constitution is a fundamental right based on keeping the government honest.

> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
> enforcement is too far away to be protective?

Very few countries, and perhaps almost none to none, have the demographic
mix of peoples and cultures that the USA has. Even fewer have the size.

Comparing straight numbers to those of puny places like New Zealand,
Australia, Canada or England, for example, to the USA is ridiculous, where
the sizes and demographics are completely different (unless normalized).

> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
> a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
> What should she have done?

The fundamental right of a gun in the USA is not related to protection from
individuals, but to the fundamental nature of a government of the people.

On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>
>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>
>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>> other countries similar to it.
>>
>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>
>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>
> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
> violent people easy access to weapons.

Like Mexico...

Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...

>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
>> a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks away.
>> What should she have done?
>
> Same as in any modern and evolved country.

Bend over and smile?

She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she should
have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.

If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their right
to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
lives. Period.

--
Cheers, Bev
"People are too stupid to realize they are."
--JoHn DoH KeLm

On 4/18/24 6:23 AM, Andrew wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:20:37 -0700 :
>
>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>> other countries similar to it.
>>
>> I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.

Or self-sufficient. Trust in government is not in our nature.

> Whoever said that the US is "more violent" is an idiot as many countries
> have far more violence but even so, the purpose of guns being in the
> constitution is a fundamental right based on keeping the government honest.
>
>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>
> Very few countries, and perhaps almost none to none, have the demographic
> mix of peoples and cultures that the USA has. Even fewer have the size.

The us-vs-them thing is universal. The USA has a lot more and different
uses and thems than most (perhaps all other) countries. I really envy
the Japanese thing about sending toddlers on errands alone -- a
consequence of nearly everybody being an us.

> Comparing straight numbers to those of puny places like New Zealand,
> Australia, Canada or England, for example, to the USA is ridiculous, where
> the sizes and demographics are completely different (unless normalized).
>
>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
>> a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
>> What should she have done?
>
> The fundamental right of a gun in the USA is not related to protection from
> individuals, but to the fundamental nature of a government of the people.

Yes. Certainly good enough, even though we might actually need tanks
and nukes to once again even the balance. Still practical for use
against individuals, though.

--
Cheers, Bev
"People are too stupid to realize they are."
--JoHn DoH KeLm

On 2024-04-17 23:20, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>
>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>
>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
>>> sharpened tip?
>>
>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>> other countries similar to it.
>
> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.

Perhaps it's all the guns.

>
> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>
> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
> a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks away.
> What should she have done?

So you advocate that every single person is armed with a firearm at all
times?

On 2024-04-18 12:13, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
>>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>>> other countries similar to it.
>>>
>>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>>
>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>>
>> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
>> violent people easy access to weapons.
>
> Like Mexico...
>
> Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
>
>>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
>>> to a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks
>>> away. What should she have done?
>>
>> Same as in any modern and evolved country.
>
> Bend over and smile?
>
> She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
> in a "safe" neighborhood.  He jumped into her car.  Perhaps she should
> have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
>
> If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their right
> to decent treatment.  Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
> physically threatening.  We should all be allowed to protect our own
> lives.  Period.
>

So again, yes or no:

Are you advocating that every person carries a firearm on his or her
person at all times?

On 2024-04-18 06:23, Andrew wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote on Wed, 17 Apr 2024 23:20:37 -0700 :
>
>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>> other countries similar to it.
>>
>> I have no idea why. Do you? Perhaps we are just violent people.
>
> Whoever said that the US is "more violent" is an idiot as many countries
> have far more violence but even so, the purpose of guns being in the
> constitution is a fundamental right based on keeping the government honest.
>
>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>
> Very few countries, and perhaps almost none to none, have the demographic
> mix of peoples and cultures that the USA has. Even fewer have the size.
>
> Comparing straight numbers to those of puny places like New Zealand,
> Australia, Canada or England, for example, to the USA is ridiculous, where
> the sizes and demographics are completely different (unless normalized).

Look at the population DENSITIES, dimwit.

Canada is large, but lots of it is next to uninhabited.

Canada is MORE urban than the US.

>
>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to
>> a different location and raped her. This happened a few blocks away.
>> What should she have done?
>
> The fundamental right of a gun in the USA is not related to protection from
> individuals, but to the fundamental nature of a government of the people.

On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:

> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>>
>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>>
>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the >>>>
>>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>>
>>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>>> other countries similar to it.
>>>>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >>
>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>>> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
>> violent people easy access to weapons.
>
> Like Mexico...
>
> Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...

With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal
'weapons' are impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a
short space of time ... unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun
spraying bullets around.

>>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
>>> to >> a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks
>>> away. >> What should she have done?
>>> Same as in any modern and evolved country.
>
> Bend over and smile?
>
> She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
> in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she should
> have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.

A lot of common sense things are alien behaviour in America: owning
guns, not wearing seatbelts, electing lunatics as the President, not
knowing how to spell the words like "colour" or "aluminium", ... :-\

> If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their
> right to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
> physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
> lives. Period.
>
> -- Cheers, Bev
> "People are too stupid to realize they are."
> --JoHn DoH KeLm

The number of people who successfully "protect their own lives" by
owning a gun is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by the number of innocent people
killed or seriuously injured by a looney with a gun.

You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.

On 4/18/24 3:14 PM, Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-18 12:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
>>>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>>>
>>>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>>>> other countries similar to it.
>>>>
>>>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>>>
>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>>>
>>> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
>>> violent people easy access to weapons.
>>
>> Like Mexico...
>>
>> Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
>>
>>>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
>>>> to a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks
>>>> away. What should she have done?
>>>
>>> Same as in any modern and evolved country.
>>
>> Bend over and smile?
>>
>> She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
>> in a "safe" neighborhood.  He jumped into her car.  Perhaps she should
>> have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
>>
>> If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their right
>> to decent treatment.  Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
>> physically threatening.  We should all be allowed to protect our own
>> lives.  Period.
>
> So again, yes or no:
>
> Are you advocating that every person carries a firearm on his or her
> person at all times?

No. There are a lot of stupid people out there. But, with certain
exceptions, we should have that right.

Apparently this is standard practice for criminals.

--
Cheers, Bev
"...so she told me it was either her or the ham radio, over."

On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>>
>>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>>
>>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the >>>>
>>>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>>>
>>>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>>>> other countries similar to it.
>>>>>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >>
>>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>>>> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
>>> violent people easy access to weapons.
>>
>> Like Mexico...
>>
>> Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
>
> With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal
> 'weapons' are impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a
> short space of time ... unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun
> spraying bullets around.

Black swan event. Other ways of mass killing that don't involve guns.
Some think that the Islamist anti-Westerners have already won just
because they made us change the way we live, travel etc.

>>>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
>>>> to >> a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks
>>>> away. >> What should she have done?
>>>> Same as in any modern and evolved country.
>>
>> Bend over and smile?
>>
>> She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
>> in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she should
>> have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
>
> A lot of common sense things are alien behaviour in America: owning
> guns, not wearing seatbelts, electing lunatics as the President, not
> knowing how to spell the words like "colour" or "aluminium", ... :-\

The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns. That's
not the problem. I think we USE seatbelts most of the time. And if you
mean Trump, there's a lot to be said about having a loose cannon for a
president. A little less trouble in the world during his tenure,
wouldn't you say? And we've simplified spelling in order to conserve
ink, space and pixels. A GOOD thing!

>> If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their
>> right to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
>> physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
>> lives. Period.
>
> The number of people who successfully "protect their own lives" by
> owning a gun is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by the number of innocent people
> killed or seriuously injured by a looney with a gun.
>
> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
> people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.

Far fewer mass shootings by loonies than one-on-one or gang squabbles.
If it weren't for the innocent bystanders, the gang squabbles might
actually be a plus.

Mainly, I think our elected officials are too stupid or venal to be
allowed to even think about changing the Constitution.

--
Cheers, Bev
"...so she told me it was either her or the ham radio, over."

On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
> On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
>> On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from
>>>>>>>>>>>>> being >>>> >>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the >>>> >>>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>>>>>>>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>>>>> other countries similar to it.
>>>>>>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>>>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >>
>>>>>>> >>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>>>>> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
>>>> violent people easy access to weapons.
>>>>> Like Mexico...
>>>>> Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
>>> With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal
>> 'weapons' are impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a
>> short space of time ... unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun
>> spraying bullets around.
>
> Black swan event. Other ways of mass killing that don't involve guns.
> Some think that the Islamist anti-Westerners have already won just
> because they made us change the way we live, travel etc.
>
>>>>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive
>>>>> >>>> to >> a different location and raped her.  This happened a few
>>>>> blocks >>>> away. >> What should she have done?
>>>>> Same as in any modern and evolved country.
>>>>> Bend over and smile?
>>>>> She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night
>>>>> >> in a "safe" neighborhood. He jumped into her car. Perhaps she
>>>>> should >> have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
>>> A lot of common sense things are alien behaviour in America: owning
>> guns, not wearing seatbelts, electing lunatics as the President, not
>> knowing how to spell the words like "colour" or "aluminium", ... :-\
>
> The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns.

Nope. Wrong on both.

Swiss law says you *can* own a weapong (with restrictions), but you are
not "required to".

If you are a Swiss citizen, you are generally permitted
to own a weapon if:
- you are at least 18 years old.
- you are not subject to a general deputyship or are
represented through a care appointee.
- there is no reason to believe you may use the weapon
to harm yourself or others.

The last point of which means you cannot use it to shoot anyone else -
so basically pointless owning a gun, unless you're something like a
duck hunter.

Israeli law says mainly only certain professionals can own a gun:

Compared with the U.S., Israel has relatively restrictive
firearm laws. It also has a mandatory national military
service requirement for citizens over age 18, and with
few exceptions, guns are restricted to Israelis with
weapons training or in security professions.

There's no place on the planet with a law saying people "must own a
gun". Even the idiotic law in Kennesaw, Georgia says: "everyone must
own a gun unless they don't want to own a gun". (Another great example
of the pointless stupidity of too many laws and stating the blatantly
obvious.)

> That's not the problem. I think we USE seatbelts most of the time.
> And if you mean Trump, there's a lot to be said about having a loose
> cannon for a president. A little less trouble in the world during his
> tenure, wouldn't you say? And we've simplified spelling in order to
> conserve ink, space and pixels. A GOOD thing!
>
>>>> If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their
>>>> right to decent treatment. Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
>>>> physically threatening. We should all be allowed to protect our own
>>>> lives. Period.
>>>
>>> The number of people who successfully "protect their own lives" by
>>> owning a gun is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by the number of innocent people
>>> killed or seriuously injured by a looney with a gun.
>>>
>>> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting
>> people. The country needs to obtain some form of common sense.
>
> Far fewer mass shootings by loonies than one-on-one or gang squabbles.
> If it weren't for the innocent bystanders, the gang squabbles might
> actually be a plus.
>
> Mainly, I think our elected officials are too stupid or venal to be
> allowed to even think about changing the Constitution.

Most US citizens are sane and want the law changes. Many US politicians
want the law changes. The only thing stopping them is that they're
afraid of the loud-mouthed few lunatics who do want to keep playing
wild west 'cowboys and indians' and those making money out of gun
sales, etc., and of course all the taxes they rake in from such sales.
:-\ It's not really any different to the reasons cigarette sales
haven't been banned in many countries, something equally as stupid.

As for "We should all be allowed to protect our own lives" ... even if
you actually shot someone when "protecting" yourself, you'll still find
yourself in a court room having to prove that it was the only option,
and most likely come out with some form of criminal record.

On 2024-04-18 20:58, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 4/18/24 3:14 PM, Alan wrote:
>> On 2024-04-18 12:13, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>>> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim
>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will
>>>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being
>>>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the
>>>>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>>>>> other countries similar to it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law
>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>>>>
>>>> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
>>>> violent people easy access to weapons.
>>>
>>> Like Mexico...
>>>
>>> Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
>>>
>>>>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to
>>>>> drive to a different location and raped her.  This happened a few
>>>>> blocks away. What should she have done?
>>>>
>>>> Same as in any modern and evolved country.
>>>
>>> Bend over and smile?
>>>
>>> She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at
>>> night in a "safe" neighborhood.  He jumped into her car.  Perhaps she
>>> should have locked her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
>>>
>>> If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their
>>> right to decent treatment.  Perhaps no weapon is required if they are
>>> physically threatening.  We should all be allowed to protect our own
>>> lives.  Period.
>>
>> So again, yes or no:
>>
>> Are you advocating that every person carries a firearm on his or her
>> person at all times?
>
> No.  There are a lot of stupid people out there.  But, with certain
> exceptions, we should have that right.

And naturally, you would class yourself with those who should have the
right...

But tell me:

What would you make those exceptions?

Would that mean you'd have to do some checks BEFORE someone could
acquire a firearm?

>
> Apparently this is standard practice for criminals.

What is "standard practice"?

On 2024-04-19 08:38, Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>> On 4/18/24 3:46 PM, Your Name wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:

....

>> The Swiss and possibly the Israelis are required to own guns.
>
> Nope. Wrong on both.
>
> Swiss law says you *can* own a weapong (with restrictions), but you are
> not "required to".
>
>    If you are a Swiss citizen, you are generally permitted
>    to own a weapon if:
>      - you are at least 18 years old.
>      - you are not subject to a general deputyship or are
>        represented through a care appointee.
>      - there is no reason to believe you may use the weapon
>        to harm yourself or others.
>
> The last point of which means you cannot use it to shoot anyone else -
> so basically pointless owning a gun, unless you're something like a duck
> hunter.

The purpose being to defend the country from foreign invaders, not
yourself from somebody invading your private property, or from any sort
of criminal.

And they get trained.
....

--
Cheers, Carlos.

Much snipped...

On 4/18/24 11:38 PM, Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-04-19 04:11:19 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>>
>> Mainly, I think our elected officials are too stupid or venal to be
>> allowed to even think about changing the Constitution.

Actually, this is the main thing.

I stand corrected about the gun-owning requirement. Perhaps there was
an earlier Swiss law or perhaps I waa ill-informed.

> As for "We should all be allowed to protect our own lives" ... even if
> you actually shot someone when "protecting" yourself, you'll still find
> yourself in a court room having to prove that it was the only option,
> and most likely come out with some form of criminal record.

I think that would depend on what a "reasonable person" would deem a
threat. A guy with a knife who outweighed me by 100 pounds would
probably be considered a threat and I wouldn't be hauled into court. A
skinny teen with a knife and I'd probably still be OK. I'm amazed at
how much stronger a man is than a same-size woman.

--
Cheers, Bev
"...so she told me it was either her or the ham radio, over."

Your Name wrote:
> On 2024-04-18 19:13:09 +0000, The Real Bev said:
>
>> On 4/18/24 2:11 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-18 08:20, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> On 4/17/24 10:18 AM, Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-17 10:05, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/15/24 11:48 PM, Chris wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence". Its weakness.
>>>>>>> Billions of people are quite capable of not becoming a victim without
>>>>>>> needing guns for "self-defence".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, screaming I AM NOT A VICTIM at the thug with a knife will >>>>
>>>>>> definitely send him on his way abashed and save Granny from being >>>>
>>>>>> harmed. Or perhaps you were thinking of the umbrella with the >>>>
>>>>>> sharpened tip?
>>>>>
>>>>> You still haven't explained why the US has so many more deaths than
>>>>> other countries similar to it.
>>>>>> I have no idea why.  Do you?  Perhaps we are just violent people.
>>>>>> Given that this is true, how do we best protect ourselves when law >>
>>>>>> enforcement is too far away to be protective?
>>>> The same way as other countries do: by banning weapons. You do not let
>>> violent people easy access to weapons.
>>
>> Like Mexico...
>>
>> Knives, rebar, baseball bats, tennis rackets, 2x4s...
>
> With the possible exception of the cars, all of those personal 'weapons' are
> impossible to use to kill and injure lots of people in a short space of time ...
> unlike a moron with a (semi)automatic gun spraying bullets around.

Mexico has fierce gun laws, and also has plenty of instances of morons
"spraying bullets around."

>>>> A few nights ago a guy pulled a knife on a woman, forced her to drive to >>
>>>> a different location and raped her.  This happened a few blocks away. >>
>>>> What should she have done?
>>>> Same as in any modern and evolved country.
>>
>> Bend over and smile?
>>
>> She was sitting in her car in a restaurant parking lot at 8:30 at night in a
>> "safe" neighborhood.  He jumped into her car.  Perhaps she should have locked
>> her doors, but that's alien behavior here.
>
> A lot of common sense things are alien behaviour in America: owning guns, not
> wearing seatbelts, electing lunatics as the President, not knowing how to spell
> the words like "colour" or "aluminium", ...  :-\
>
>
>
>
>> If someone threatens you with ANY weapon they have forfeited their right to
>> decent treatment.  Perhaps no weapon is required if they are physically
>> threatening.  We should all be allowed to protect our own lives.  Period.
>>
>> -- Cheers, Bev
>>     "People are too stupid to realize they are."
>>                               --JoHn DoH KeLm
>
> The number of people who successfully "protect their own lives" by owning a gun
> is FAR FAR FAR outweighed by the number of innocent people killed or seriuously
> injured by a looney with a gun.

No it's not.

> You've got junior school kids "solving" their arguments by shooting people. The
> country needs to obtain some form of common sense.

Are these kids suburban whites?

Am 05.04.24 um 11:42 schrieb Arno Welzel:
> Tamborino, 2024-04-01 02:55:
>
>> This is the common misunderstanding with both RCS in general and Apple's
>> update in particular. RCS is not end-to-end encrypted.
>
> RCS *is* end-to-end encrypted. But this is not mandatory, so using
> unencrypted connections is possible. But the Google messaging app in
> Android will show you if the recipient has RCS and also if the
> connection is encrypted.
>
>>
>> Yet, for conversations between Google Messages users, end-to-end encryption
>> is now enabled on your Android phone by default.
>> https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2024/03/30/new-apple-iphone-16-pro-max-and-ios-18-leak-googles-imessage-warning/
>>
>> So unlike iMessaging between iPhone users or Google Messaging between
>> Android users, or more importantly WhatsApping between iPhone and Android
>> users, RCS between iPhone and Android will not have that level of security.
>
> But this is not the fault of RCS.

Sure. It is Google's fault.
Secure communication is not possible with RCS and Apple does not want to
adopt such an inferior level of security for iOS to iOS-communication.
With RCS a MIM-attack is always possible. The NSA is already smiling ...

RCS is dead and more than redundant.

--
"Gutta cavat lapidem." (Ovid)

Chris wrote:
> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist - in most civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted one
>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>
>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>
>>> He got what he deserved. Maybe you want to join him?
>>
>> No he didn't. Maybe you should be rape hoaxed.
>
> You're getting incoherent. Are the drugs wearing off?
>
>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>
>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>
>>> No one needs vigilantes.
>>
>> Self-defense is not vigilantism.
>
> Pre-empirically carrying a gun is not "self-defence".

Yes it is.

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-15 22:10, Anonymous wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-14 20:06, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  - in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Spoken like a true misogynist.
>>>>
>>>> Go read what happened to Harvey Weinstein.
>>>
>>> What exactly—in your humble opinion—"happened" to Harvey Weinstein?
>>
>> Why should some slut be allowed to go to the authorities after YEARS
>> AND YEARS and cry "rape"?
>
> Why should he be allowed to get away with it even if it's been years?
>
>>
>>>>> Are there any aspects of the law you trust? From here it sounds like you'd
>>>>> prefer the wild west.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do "peaceable men" need to have a gun? In modern society there's no
>>>>> need for anyone to be carrying guns. It's just boys pretending to be men.
>>>>
>>>> Because bad and evil men exist. This isn't changed by modern society.
>>>>
>>>>> When everyone is carrying a gun
>>>>
>>>> But not everyone carries a gun.
>>>
>>> The simple fact is:
>>>
>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate#/media/File:2019_Gun_ownership_rates_and_gun_homicide_rates_-_developed_world_-_scatter_plot.svg>
>>>
>>> Deal with it.
>>>
>>
>> Do you think that someone is more dead after having been shot with a
>> gun?
>>
>> And why the focus on the "developed world"?
>
> Because those countries are similar to the US in terms of wealth, social
> development, etc.
>
>
>> Mexico has fierce gun laws
>> and a much higher murder rate.
> And there is a lot more poverty in Mexico.
>

Poverty doesn't cause crime.

Alan wrote:
> On 2024-04-15 22:09, Anonymous wrote:
>> Alan wrote:
>>> On 2024-04-14 19:48, Anonymous wrote:
>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-04-13 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anonymous <anon@anon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java Jive wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 04/04/2024 01:58, Hank Rogers wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is trump. They are much alike and have never done anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. Ever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Neither has ever committed a crime or screwed a customer or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business partner.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is provably untrue, in that Trump has already lost two civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wherein one of which a jury found him to be a rapist  - in most
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> civilised
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people's view, that is both committing a crime and screwing someone.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Losing a civil case is not the same as a criminal conviction.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The claim was the he "never done anything wrong". Losing a civil
>>>>>>>>>>>>> case is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear case of doing something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No it's not. Anyone can sue anyone for anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And? If the court finds against you you've legally done something wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Not morally.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying that Trump has never done anything morally wrong? You've
>>>>>>>>> completely lost any sense of reality.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> At the very least he cheated on two of his wives. He sexually assaulted
>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>> woman (probably more) and he defrauded several banks and the IRS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he legitimately "knife to the throat" raped women,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What the fuck does that mean?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> then why wasn't
>>>>>>>> he criminally prosecuted?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Like you said yourself the US system doesn't provide justice, especially
>>>>>>> against rich, powerful men. Sexual assault hasn't been treated well by the
>>>>>>> CJS for a long time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, you probably think Jacqueline Coakley was telling the truth. LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Forget accusations, most rape _convictions_ are false.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If he defrauded the IRS, was he criminally
>>>>>>>> charged?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not yet. Here's hoping...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The legal system very rarely has anything to do with
>>>>>>>>>> actual justice.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In the US, I agree. You've got the system you all wanted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Also the state DA isn't just anyone and fraud or defamation aren't just
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you or I defrauded a bank or insurance company we'd rightly be
>>>>>>>>>>> prosecuted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prosecuted under criminal statutes, not sued under civil.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why? Civil law is just as important.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Standards of proof in the civil system is not as rigorous as that
>>>>>>>> in the criminal system.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Still evidence of wrongdoing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why should it be any different for Trump?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nobody is saying it should be.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's not true. You're saying he's done nothing wrong and shouldn't face
>>>>>>>>> trial. The courts should decide.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone is NYC has known for decades what kind of crook he is. If it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wasn't for the hundreds of millions of dollars he got from Fred
>>>>>>>>>>>>> he'd just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> be pretty street criminal.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Further, he faces 91 further criminal charges in 4 separate cases,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All politically-motivated persecutions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lol. I love how the right are strong on law and order until one of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>> own is found wanting in that dept. Then it's "persecution".
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hypocrites the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How people for that, I don't know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I want order. After that, we can have law. Instead, we have
>>>>>>>>>>>> politically-
>>>>>>>>>>>> motivated persecutions for made-up crimes,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Federal law and election law are made up now, are they? The right were
>>>>>>>>>>> desperate for Biden to be arrested for exactly the same as Trump. Again,
>>>>>>>>>>> it's one rule for you and different rules for others. That's not how
>>>>>>>>>>> fair
>>>>>>>>>>> society works.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There are countless laws that literally invent crimes and proscribe
>>>>>>>>>> punishments when there is no concrete harm being done to anyone or
>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Countless, really? Examples.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Notable you didn't answer this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All laws that punish mere possession of firearms by peaceable men, for one,
>>>>>> if you really want to get into that debate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Also, Bragg hasn't told us what underlying felony Trump allegedly committed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure he has.
>>>>
>>>> No he hasn't.
>>>>
>>>>> It is literally in the indictments.
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.scribd.com/document/636099588/Donald-J-Trump-Indictment>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll give you one example:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'THE GRAND JURY OF THE COUNTY OF NEW YORK, by this indictment, accuses the
>>>>> defendant of the crime of FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE ,
>>>>> in violation of Penal Law §175.10, committed as follows: The defendant, in
>>>>> the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with
>>>>> intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal
>>>>> the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business
>>>>> records of an enterprise, to wit, an invoice from Michael Cohen dated
>>>>> February 14, 2017, marked as a record of the Donald J. Trump Revocable
>>>>> Trust, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.'
>>>>>
>>>>> That's a FELONY, doofus.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 33 more listed there.
>>>>
>>>> Those are upgraded misdemeanors, because there is allegedly an UNDERLYING
>>>> felony. Show us the UNDERLYING felony.
>>>
>>> You don't understand the law.
>>>
>>> There doesn't have to be an "underlying felony".
>>>
>>> There just has to be an underlying crime that the falsification was
>>> undertaken in furtherance of.
>>
>> Fine, then what was the underlying crime?
>
> Federal election contribution crimes.