On 2/18/2022 8:24 PM, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:05:28 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:10:45 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:56:43 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:04:26 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:34:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For Remington Arms, the charges alleged incitement in their
>>>>>> advertising, an unique CT statute and I agree it was poorly
>>>>>> done (although I didn't see it as criminal, merely stupid. I
>>>>>> am not a CT legislator).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Trouble is, Remington Arms is in bankruptcy (a regular
>>>>>> process in the boom-bust arms industry) so the four
>>>>>> insurance carriers decided it was in their best interests to
>>>>>> settle. I do not know their analyses. Nor do you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting side note: The AR-15 style rifle was chambered
>>>>>> .22LR.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fired fast enough, .22 LR can kill a lot of kids.
>>>>>
>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>> I think that is a fundamental difference between the U.S., today, and
>>>> some other countries.
>>>>
>>>> About a year an Thai Army Sergeant checked a M-16 out of the armory
>>>> and went into Korat City and first went to a Buddhist Temple and shot
>>>> some people and then went to a large shopping complex and shot some
>>>> more. The final score was 30 dead and (I believe) 50 wounded.
>>>>
>>>> And nobody even mentioned the rifle, rather the entire blame was
>>>> placed squarely on the shoulders of the guy that did the shooting. In
>>>> the U.S., as in the case of the Remington Rifle, the blame seems to be
>>>> somehow attributed to the inert object rather then the human that
>>>> actually did the deed.
>>>
>>> I am assuming your second "paragraph" above should be "About a year ago a Thai Army Sergeant..."
>>>
>>> Thailand (you ae in Thailand right?) has about 70 million people. A little under one fourth the USA population of 330 million. A year ago you had a big mass killing. In the USA we have had a similar mass killing every few years. Double yours in 2017. One and half times more in 2016. Equal to yours in 2007, 2012, 2017. And half or so in many other years.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>>>
>>> Looking at the number of mass killings in the USA, and the body count at each, I'd bet the USA is still way ahead of Thailand in mass killing events. And because the USA is so far ahead of Thailand, we look at why that is so. Is it real easy to do a mass killing in the USA because its so easy to get a good gun to go mass killing with? I bet if Thailand has one or two or three of similar mass killings every single year, then Thailand would also look at why its so easy to do these mass killings. And if its determined that all the perpetrators are using M-16 rifles, then the government might restrict the access to these good mass killing guns. Also, because your mass killing was an Army Sergeant using an Army M-16 rifle, focusing on the gun would be analogous to focusing on the speed or racing car in a crash at the Indianapolis 500 race. The Army M-16 rifle used in wars by soldiers is too good at killing people? Why would you have any questions about the rifle? Access to it by
>>> an Army Sergeant? No. Ability to take it off base without lots of checks and balances and paperwork and explanations? Yes.
>> You are rationalizing things. But, if you wish to do that then:
>>
>> Using your reference there have been, from 1949 until 2018 some 442
>> killed in mass shootings while during the same period there were
>> 51,613 killed while riding bicycles.
>>
>> If you want to talk about devices that kill people I do believe that
>> you really do need to consider bicycles... 116.77 times as many deaths
>> as deaths in mass shootings. and on an annual basis in 2018 rifles
>> killed 305 while bicycles killed 854.
>>
>> I and certainly Andrew have pointed out that homicides committed with
>> these incredibly dangerious semi-automatic rifles is only a bit more
>> then half those committed with hands and feet.
>> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
>>
>> But, of course, that wasn't the point at all. I was pointing out the
>> fallacy, in the U.S. of pointing at some inanimate object and saying,
>> "Gee if we just get rid of those dangerious things, why, there'd be no
>> crime at all."
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And this attributing a crime to an inert object instead of the
>>>> individual that actually carried out the act seems to be a relatively
>>>> recent phenomena,
>>>
>>> No. In the USA the government banned machine guns from civilians back in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The federal government thought that inert object (machine gun) was too deadly for non military to have at their disposal. Mobsters back in the 1920s and 30s thought machine guns were real good at killing people. And they were. Government thought they could reduce the ease of killing by banning that inert object.
>> Nope, they didn't ban machine guns. Read the act. They required a $100
>> license to poses a "machine gun"
>
> OK. Its $200 for the National Firearms Act stamp. And a whole lot of federal forms and investigation too.
> https://www.therange702.com/blog/can-you-legally-own-a-machine-gun/
>
> But the USA licenses and regulates explosives too. Everyone buying, selling, using explosives has to have federal license. Why do we do that? Shouldn't everyone have the right to use explosives whenever they want? Isn't it a constitutional right? Explosives are inert objects too. Why should they be regulated and controlled? I don't recall anytime in history where the bad guys were blowing everyone and everything up with dynamite. FREEDOM to BLOW things UP!!!!!!!!!!!
> https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states
>
> Or did some freedom hating government bureaucrat decide to take that freedom away from Americans? He thought blowing things up was not a good thing for the average Joe on the street to do. Even though explosives are an inert object. And do lots of good things in activities like mining. Kind of like M-16 and AR-15 are appropriate for the military to have and use because they are good at killing people. Which the military does. But do bums walking on the street need to be able to kill people so easily? Or blow people and things up easily with explosives?
>
>
>
>
>
>>> When I was growing up we didn't have a lot of
>>>> shootings but I do remember one as I went to school with the policeman
>>>> that did the shooting.The "victim" attacked the Cop with a garden hoe
>>>> and the cop shot him. There was a big to-do and a Grand Jury and the
>>>> newspapers were full of it and never a mention of a gun at all.
>>>>
>>>> The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
>>>> really is true.
>>>
>>> True. Except its also true that people can shoot LOTS of people if they have a gun that shoots lots of bullets real fast.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> John B.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.

Well, then! Glad to know the regulatory system and all the
experts are saving us from dynamite:

https://www.fox43.com/article/news/nation-world/atm-explosions-thefts-philadelphia/507-bb610727-636c-4d54-ba70-87350a7a99af

Works about as well as the century old worldwide Heroin ban.

Arresting the guy (link above) is good policy. Death by
paperwork for innocent mining engineers isn't all that helpful.

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

On 2/18/2022 8:39 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
>> <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:52 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>>> russellseaton1@yahoo.com <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:01:31 PM UTC-6, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:45:20 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The hospital and doctor I mentioned are "Government Hospitals". We
>>>>>>>> have both Government and Private hospitals here. the major difference
>>>>>>>> is that for a Thai citizen, they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum
>>>>>>>> wages, per visit and anything that the doctor in the Government
>>>>>>>> Hospital prescribes is covered by that 30 baht. The so called Private
>>>>>>>> hospitals charges are as much as 10 times, or more, higher.
>>>>>>> Whoa. I had to look that up, but 30 baht is almost one U.S. dollar for the visit
>>>>>>> plus all medications!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And private hospitals charge nearly $10 per hospital visit? You know, here in
>>>>>>> the U.S. those charges are a bit higher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John did also say "they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum wages,"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So $1 per hour is the minimum wage in Thailand. Here in the US of A it
>>>>>> is $7.25. I suspect many folks would be dancing in the streets if they
>>>>>> could only get a charge of $72.50 for a doctor office visit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IÂ’d be quite pissed off at the sudden increase in cost.
>>>>
>>>> But Real Americans don't want none of that socialism! We LIKE giving
>>>> our money to maintain the Health Care executive yachts!
>>>>
>>>> So what if our health is way worse than so many other countries? WE'RE
>>>> NUMBER ONE! (In costs.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> IÂ’ve been assured by American colleagueÂ’s of my wife over the years that
>>> weÂ’d of lost the house after the brain Injury, ie lots of scans high
>>> intensity wards, rehabilitation over the years and so on!
>>>
>>> That essentially be bankrupt the idea of keeping oneÂ’s job let alone the
>>> houseÂ…
>>>
>>> Roger Merriman
>>
>> I recently looked up the U.S. costs of a broken arm and the article
>> stated some costs and then went on to say that it "might be as much as
>> $10,000".
>
> Whereas my daughter’s broken arm a number of years ago cost me $30 (for
> parking at the hospital).
>

Were you a cash customer? Probably not.
I'll assume the actual billing was over $30 to someone.

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

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 16:12:34 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 5:26:21 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 01:40:35 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:01:31 PM UTC-6, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:45:20 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > The hospital and doctor I mentioned are "Government Hospitals". We
>> >> > have both Government and Private hospitals here. the major difference
>> >> > is that for a Thai citizen, they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum
>> >> > wages, per visit and anything that the doctor in the Government
>> >> > Hospital prescribes is covered by that 30 baht. The so called Private
>> >> > hospitals charges are as much as 10 times, or more, higher.
>> >> Whoa. I had to look that up, but 30 baht is almost one U.S. dollar for the visit
>> >> plus all medications!
>> >>
>> >> And private hospitals charge nearly $10 per hospital visit? You know, here in
>> >> the U.S. those charges are a bit higher.
>> >>
>> >> - Frank Krygowski
>> >
>> >John did also say "they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum wages,"
>> >
>> >So $1 per hour is the minimum wage in Thailand. Here in the US of A it is $7.25. I suspect many folks would be dancing in the streets if they could only get a charge of $72.50 for a doctor office visit.
>> The current exchange rate (just looked it up) is 32,25 baht = 1
>> dollar. Minimum wage here has been 300 baht a day for several years.
>> However the work day is not specified as 8 hours but it is an
>> approximation of what many people work so yes a visit to a Public
>> Hospital is abbot 1 hour's wages. and for the elderly, over 60, it is
>> free.
>>
>> But having said that I might add that the average tip to a bloke who
>> pushes your supermarket cart out to your car and unloads it for you is
>> about 20 baht.
>
>You better not come back to the USA John. The grocery cart boy pushing the cart out to the car and unloading it is NOT done in the USA anymore. At least not at any grocery store I have ever visited. Maybe it might still be done for ancient grandma in one or two very rural towns out in the hinterlands. But not in 99.99% of towns and cities. There are no full service gas stations anymore either. No one but you pumps your gas to your car.

Here the (I'm translating here) "carryboys" are actually the guys who
are running around the parking area collecting the carts to wheel them
back to the front of the store. Very likely minimum wage people who
are making a "bit on the side".

And "Filling Stations", they all have people to pump your gas and the
first thing that they do is put a big sign on the hood saying
"SERVICE" I assume to influence you NOT to drive off before the hose
is out of the tank. And just as soon as they put the cap on the tank
they are standing at the driver's window with their hand out (:-) And,
for some reason, a lot of them are girls.

>>
>> So, in those terms 30 baht is just a bit more then you would tip the
>> "carryboy".
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:24:16 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:05:28 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:10:45 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:56:43 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:04:26 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:34:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> For Remington Arms, the charges alleged incitement in their
>> >> >> advertising, an unique CT statute and I agree it was poorly
>> >> >> done (although I didn't see it as criminal, merely stupid. I
>> >> >> am not a CT legislator).
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Trouble is, Remington Arms is in bankruptcy (a regular
>> >> >> process in the boom-bust arms industry) so the four
>> >> >> insurance carriers decided it was in their best interests to
>> >> >> settle. I do not know their analyses. Nor do you.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Interesting side note: The AR-15 style rifle was chambered
>> >> >> .22LR.
>> >> >
>> >> >Fired fast enough, .22 LR can kill a lot of kids.
>> >> >
>> >> >- Frank Krygowski
>> >> I think that is a fundamental difference between the U.S., today, and
>> >> some other countries.
>> >>
>> >> About a year an Thai Army Sergeant checked a M-16 out of the armory
>> >> and went into Korat City and first went to a Buddhist Temple and shot
>> >> some people and then went to a large shopping complex and shot some
>> >> more. The final score was 30 dead and (I believe) 50 wounded.
>> >>
>> >> And nobody even mentioned the rifle, rather the entire blame was
>> >> placed squarely on the shoulders of the guy that did the shooting. In
>> >> the U.S., as in the case of the Remington Rifle, the blame seems to be
>> >> somehow attributed to the inert object rather then the human that
>> >> actually did the deed.
>> >
>> >I am assuming your second "paragraph" above should be "About a year ago a Thai Army Sergeant..."
>> >
>> >Thailand (you ae in Thailand right?) has about 70 million people. A little under one fourth the USA population of 330 million. A year ago you had a big mass killing. In the USA we have had a similar mass killing every few years. Double yours in 2017. One and half times more in 2016. Equal to yours in 2007, 2012, 2017. And half or so in many other years.
>> >
>> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>> >
>> >Looking at the number of mass killings in the USA, and the body count at each, I'd bet the USA is still way ahead of Thailand in mass killing events. And because the USA is so far ahead of Thailand, we look at why that is so. Is it real easy to do a mass killing in the USA because its so easy to get a good gun to go mass killing with? I bet if Thailand has one or two or three of similar mass killings every single year, then Thailand would also look at why its so easy to do these mass killings. And if its determined that all the perpetrators are using M-16 rifles, then the government might restrict the access to these good mass killing guns. Also, because your mass killing was an Army Sergeant using an Army M-16 rifle, focusing on the gun would be analogous to focusing on the speed or racing car in a crash at the Indianapolis 500 race. The Army M-16 rifle used in wars by soldiers is too good at killing people? Why would you have any questions about the rifle? Access to it by
>> >an Army Sergeant? No. Ability to take it off base without lots of checks and balances and paperwork and explanations? Yes.
>> You are rationalizing things. But, if you wish to do that then:
>>
>> Using your reference there have been, from 1949 until 2018 some 442
>> killed in mass shootings while during the same period there were
>> 51,613 killed while riding bicycles.
>>
>> If you want to talk about devices that kill people I do believe that
>> you really do need to consider bicycles... 116.77 times as many deaths
>> as deaths in mass shootings. and on an annual basis in 2018 rifles
>> killed 305 while bicycles killed 854.
>>
>> I and certainly Andrew have pointed out that homicides committed with
>> these incredibly dangerious semi-automatic rifles is only a bit more
>> then half those committed with hands and feet.
>> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
>>
>> But, of course, that wasn't the point at all. I was pointing out the
>> fallacy, in the U.S. of pointing at some inanimate object and saying,
>> "Gee if we just get rid of those dangerious things, why, there'd be no
>> crime at all."
>> >
>> >>
>> >> And this attributing a crime to an inert object instead of the
>> >> individual that actually carried out the act seems to be a relatively
>> >> recent phenomena,
>> >
>> >No. In the USA the government banned machine guns from civilians back in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The federal government thought that inert object (machine gun) was too deadly for non military to have at their disposal. Mobsters back in the 1920s and 30s thought machine guns were real good at killing people. And they were. Government thought they could reduce the ease of killing by banning that inert object.
>> Nope, they didn't ban machine guns. Read the act. They required a $100
>> license to poses a "machine gun"
>
>OK. Its $200 for the National Firearms Act stamp. And a whole lot of federal forms and investigation too.
>https://www.therange702.com/blog/can-you-legally-own-a-machine-gun/

My mistake. I had thought it was $100
>
>But the USA licenses and regulates explosives too. Everyone buying, selling, using explosives has to have federal license. Why do we do that? Shouldn't everyone have the right to use explosives whenever they want? Isn't it a constitutional right? Explosives are inert objects too. Why should they be regulated and controlled? I don't recall anytime in history where the bad guys were blowing everyone and everything up with dynamite. FREEDOM to BLOW things UP!!!!!!!!!!!
>https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states

While your reference is certainly true in part is it true in dealing
with gun powder? Does one require a license to poses or use gun power
either Black or smokeless?

As an aside, as a kid I and a buddy used to make nitroglycerine,
generally unsuccessfully. We used to put the "nitroglycerine" in empty
rifle cases and throw them down into an abandoned mine... and every
once in a while one of them would go "bang". Note: "bang" not "!BANG!"

>Or did some freedom hating government bureaucrat decide to take that freedom away from Americans? He thought blowing things up was not a good thing for the average Joe on the street to do. Even though explosives are an inert object. And do lots of good things in activities like mining. Kind of like M-16 and AR-15 are appropriate for the military to have and use because they are good at killing people. Which the military does. But do bums walking on the street need to be able to kill people so easily? Or blow people and things up easily with explosives?

Well, the M-16's being capable of full-automatic firing are banned or
at least you need a $200 license to own one and the AK's not being
anything but a "semi-automatic" require no license. But why should
they. After all, semi automatic firearms, to my knowledge, have been
available for more then 100 years - the Remington Model 8 was first
sold in 1905.

And "big Magazines" Oh Horrors!
But of course the Luger pistol had a 30 round magazine way back in WW
I days and several current pistols, the Glock 18 comes standard with a
20 round capacity and 31 round magazines are available and the Glock
17 can also be fitted with a 30 round magazine, and the Kel-Tec PMR 30
has a standard capacity of 30 rounds.

So, apparently semi automatic rifles aren't inherent scary and 30
round magazines aren't scary so why when you combing a small bore semi
automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine does it become such a
fearsome weapon.

I might comment that a full length magazines for a 12 gauge shotguns
are available. In fact the "Century Arms Catamount Fury II" is a 12
gauge shotgun that comes standard with a 30 round magazine, and I'm
pretty sure that 30 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot is are more lethal
then 30 rounds of .22 bullets.

AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 8:39 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
>>> <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 2/18/2022 10:52 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>>>> russellseaton1@yahoo.com <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:01:31 PM UTC-6, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:45:20 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The hospital and doctor I mentioned are "Government Hospitals". We
>>>>>>>>> have both Government and Private hospitals here. the major difference
>>>>>>>>> is that for a Thai citizen, they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum
>>>>>>>>> wages, per visit and anything that the doctor in the Government
>>>>>>>>> Hospital prescribes is covered by that 30 baht. The so called Private
>>>>>>>>> hospitals charges are as much as 10 times, or more, higher.
>>>>>>>> Whoa. I had to look that up, but 30 baht is almost one U.S. dollar for the visit
>>>>>>>> plus all medications!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And private hospitals charge nearly $10 per hospital visit? You know, here in
>>>>>>>> the U.S. those charges are a bit higher.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John did also say "they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum wages,"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So $1 per hour is the minimum wage in Thailand. Here in the US of A it
>>>>>>> is $7.25. I suspect many folks would be dancing in the streets if they
>>>>>>> could only get a charge of $72.50 for a doctor office visit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IÂ’d be quite pissed off at the sudden increase in cost.
>>>>>
>>>>> But Real Americans don't want none of that socialism! We LIKE giving
>>>>> our money to maintain the Health Care executive yachts!
>>>>>
>>>>> So what if our health is way worse than so many other countries? WE'RE
>>>>> NUMBER ONE! (In costs.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> IÂ’ve been assured by American colleagueÂ’s of my wife over the years that
>>>> weÂ’d of lost the house after the brain Injury, ie lots of scans high
>>>> intensity wards, rehabilitation over the years and so on!
>>>>
>>>> That essentially be bankrupt the idea of keeping oneÂ’s job let alone the
>>>> houseÂ…
>>>>
>>>> Roger Merriman
>>>
>>> I recently looked up the U.S. costs of a broken arm and the article
>>> stated some costs and then went on to say that it "might be as much as
>>> $10,000".
>>
>> Whereas my daughter’s broken arm a number of years ago cost me $30 (for
>> parking at the hospital).
>>
>
> Were you a cash customer? Probably not.
> I'll assume the actual billing was over $30 to someone.
>

Oh, it probably cost much more than $30, but it was spread over a large
number of people over a large amount of time. It’s quite possible that over
my lifetime, I may have spent more on healthcare than the average American,
but it sure hurt less to amortize it across everybody’s lifetime.

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 8:52:05 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 8:24 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:05:28 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:10:45 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:56:43 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:04:26 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:34:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> For Remington Arms, the charges alleged incitement in their
> >>>>>> advertising, an unique CT statute and I agree it was poorly
> >>>>>> done (although I didn't see it as criminal, merely stupid. I
> >>>>>> am not a CT legislator).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Trouble is, Remington Arms is in bankruptcy (a regular
> >>>>>> process in the boom-bust arms industry) so the four
> >>>>>> insurance carriers decided it was in their best interests to
> >>>>>> settle. I do not know their analyses. Nor do you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Interesting side note: The AR-15 style rifle was chambered
> >>>>>> .22LR.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Fired fast enough, .22 LR can kill a lot of kids.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
> >>>> I think that is a fundamental difference between the U.S., today, and
> >>>> some other countries.
> >>>>
> >>>> About a year an Thai Army Sergeant checked a M-16 out of the armory
> >>>> and went into Korat City and first went to a Buddhist Temple and shot
> >>>> some people and then went to a large shopping complex and shot some
> >>>> more. The final score was 30 dead and (I believe) 50 wounded.
> >>>>
> >>>> And nobody even mentioned the rifle, rather the entire blame was
> >>>> placed squarely on the shoulders of the guy that did the shooting. In
> >>>> the U.S., as in the case of the Remington Rifle, the blame seems to be
> >>>> somehow attributed to the inert object rather then the human that
> >>>> actually did the deed.
> >>>
> >>> I am assuming your second "paragraph" above should be "About a year ago a Thai Army Sergeant..."
> >>>
> >>> Thailand (you ae in Thailand right?) has about 70 million people. A little under one fourth the USA population of 330 million. A year ago you had a big mass killing. In the USA we have had a similar mass killing every few years. Double yours in 2017. One and half times more in 2016. Equal to yours in 2007, 2012, 2017. And half or so in many other years.
> >>>
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
> >>>
> >>> Looking at the number of mass killings in the USA, and the body count at each, I'd bet the USA is still way ahead of Thailand in mass killing events. And because the USA is so far ahead of Thailand, we look at why that is so. Is it real easy to do a mass killing in the USA because its so easy to get a good gun to go mass killing with? I bet if Thailand has one or two or three of similar mass killings every single year, then Thailand would also look at why its so easy to do these mass killings. And if its determined that all the perpetrators are using M-16 rifles, then the government might restrict the access to these good mass killing guns. Also, because your mass killing was an Army Sergeant using an Army M-16 rifle, focusing on the gun would be analogous to focusing on the speed or racing car in a crash at the Indianapolis 500 race. The Army M-16 rifle used in wars by soldiers is too good at killing people? Why would you have any questions about the rifle? Access to it by
> >>> an Army Sergeant? No. Ability to take it off base without lots of checks and balances and paperwork and explanations? Yes.
> >> You are rationalizing things. But, if you wish to do that then:
> >>
> >> Using your reference there have been, from 1949 until 2018 some 442
> >> killed in mass shootings while during the same period there were
> >> 51,613 killed while riding bicycles.
> >>
> >> If you want to talk about devices that kill people I do believe that
> >> you really do need to consider bicycles... 116.77 times as many deaths
> >> as deaths in mass shootings. and on an annual basis in 2018 rifles
> >> killed 305 while bicycles killed 854.
> >>
> >> I and certainly Andrew have pointed out that homicides committed with
> >> these incredibly dangerious semi-automatic rifles is only a bit more
> >> then half those committed with hands and feet.
> >> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
> >>
> >> But, of course, that wasn't the point at all. I was pointing out the
> >> fallacy, in the U.S. of pointing at some inanimate object and saying,
> >> "Gee if we just get rid of those dangerious things, why, there'd be no
> >> crime at all."
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> And this attributing a crime to an inert object instead of the
> >>>> individual that actually carried out the act seems to be a relatively
> >>>> recent phenomena,
> >>>
> >>> No. In the USA the government banned machine guns from civilians back in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The federal government thought that inert object (machine gun) was too deadly for non military to have at their disposal. Mobsters back in the 1920s and 30s thought machine guns were real good at killing people. And they were. Government thought they could reduce the ease of killing by banning that inert object.
> >> Nope, they didn't ban machine guns. Read the act. They required a $100
> >> license to poses a "machine gun"
> >
> > OK. Its $200 for the National Firearms Act stamp. And a whole lot of federal forms and investigation too.
> > https://www.therange702.com/blog/can-you-legally-own-a-machine-gun/
> >
> > But the USA licenses and regulates explosives too. Everyone buying, selling, using explosives has to have federal license. Why do we do that? Shouldn't everyone have the right to use explosives whenever they want? Isn't it a constitutional right? Explosives are inert objects too. Why should they be regulated and controlled? I don't recall anytime in history where the bad guys were blowing everyone and everything up with dynamite. FREEDOM to BLOW things UP!!!!!!!!!!!
> > https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states
> >
> > Or did some freedom hating government bureaucrat decide to take that freedom away from Americans? He thought blowing things up was not a good thing for the average Joe on the street to do. Even though explosives are an inert object. And do lots of good things in activities like mining. Kind of like M-16 and AR-15 are appropriate for the military to have and use because they are good at killing people. Which the military does. But do bums walking on the street need to be able to kill people so easily? Or blow people and things up easily with explosives?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> When I was growing up we didn't have a lot of
> >>>> shootings but I do remember one as I went to school with the policeman
> >>>> that did the shooting.The "victim" attacked the Cop with a garden hoe
> >>>> and the cop shot him. There was a big to-do and a Grand Jury and the
> >>>> newspapers were full of it and never a mention of a gun at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
> >>>> really is true.
> >>>
> >>> True. Except its also true that people can shoot LOTS of people if they have a gun that shoots lots of bullets real fast.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>>
> >>>> John B.
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> Well, then! Glad to know the regulatory system and all the
> experts are saving us from dynamite:
>
> https://www.fox43.com/article/news/nation-world/atm-explosions-thefts-philadelphia/507-bb610727-636c-4d54-ba70-87350a7a99af
>
> Works about as well as the century old worldwide Heroin ban.
>
> Arresting the guy (link above) is good policy. Death by
> paperwork for innocent mining engineers isn't all that helpful.
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 11:16:57 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 18:24:16 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:05:28 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:10:45 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:56:43 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:04:26 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> >> >> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:34:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> For Remington Arms, the charges alleged incitement in their
> >> >> >> advertising, an unique CT statute and I agree it was poorly
> >> >> >> done (although I didn't see it as criminal, merely stupid. I
> >> >> >> am not a CT legislator).
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Trouble is, Remington Arms is in bankruptcy (a regular
> >> >> >> process in the boom-bust arms industry) so the four
> >> >> >> insurance carriers decided it was in their best interests to
> >> >> >> settle. I do not know their analyses. Nor do you.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Interesting side note: The AR-15 style rifle was chambered
> >> >> >> .22LR.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Fired fast enough, .22 LR can kill a lot of kids.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >- Frank Krygowski
> >> >> I think that is a fundamental difference between the U.S., today, and
> >> >> some other countries.
> >> >>
> >> >> About a year an Thai Army Sergeant checked a M-16 out of the armory
> >> >> and went into Korat City and first went to a Buddhist Temple and shot
> >> >> some people and then went to a large shopping complex and shot some
> >> >> more. The final score was 30 dead and (I believe) 50 wounded.
> >> >>
> >> >> And nobody even mentioned the rifle, rather the entire blame was
> >> >> placed squarely on the shoulders of the guy that did the shooting. In
> >> >> the U.S., as in the case of the Remington Rifle, the blame seems to be
> >> >> somehow attributed to the inert object rather then the human that
> >> >> actually did the deed.
> >> >
> >> >I am assuming your second "paragraph" above should be "About a year ago a Thai Army Sergeant..."
> >> >
> >> >Thailand (you ae in Thailand right?) has about 70 million people. A little under one fourth the USA population of 330 million. A year ago you had a big mass killing. In the USA we have had a similar mass killing every few years. Double yours in 2017. One and half times more in 2016. Equal to yours in 2007, 2012, 2017. And half or so in many other years.
> >> >
> >> >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
> >> >
> >> >Looking at the number of mass killings in the USA, and the body count at each, I'd bet the USA is still way ahead of Thailand in mass killing events. And because the USA is so far ahead of Thailand, we look at why that is so. Is it real easy to do a mass killing in the USA because its so easy to get a good gun to go mass killing with? I bet if Thailand has one or two or three of similar mass killings every single year, then Thailand would also look at why its so easy to do these mass killings. And if its determined that all the perpetrators are using M-16 rifles, then the government might restrict the access to these good mass killing guns. Also, because your mass killing was an Army Sergeant using an Army M-16 rifle, focusing on the gun would be analogous to focusing on the speed or racing car in a crash at the Indianapolis 500 race. The Army M-16 rifle used in wars by soldiers is too good at killing people? Why would you have any questions about the rifle? Access to it by
> >> >an Army Sergeant? No. Ability to take it off base without lots of checks and balances and paperwork and explanations? Yes.
> >> You are rationalizing things. But, if you wish to do that then:
> >>
> >> Using your reference there have been, from 1949 until 2018 some 442
> >> killed in mass shootings while during the same period there were
> >> 51,613 killed while riding bicycles.
> >>
> >> If you want to talk about devices that kill people I do believe that
> >> you really do need to consider bicycles... 116.77 times as many deaths
> >> as deaths in mass shootings. and on an annual basis in 2018 rifles
> >> killed 305 while bicycles killed 854.
> >>
> >> I and certainly Andrew have pointed out that homicides committed with
> >> these incredibly dangerious semi-automatic rifles is only a bit more
> >> then half those committed with hands and feet.
> >> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
> >>
> >> But, of course, that wasn't the point at all. I was pointing out the
> >> fallacy, in the U.S. of pointing at some inanimate object and saying,
> >> "Gee if we just get rid of those dangerious things, why, there'd be no
> >> crime at all."
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> And this attributing a crime to an inert object instead of the
> >> >> individual that actually carried out the act seems to be a relatively
> >> >> recent phenomena,
> >> >
> >> >No. In the USA the government banned machine guns from civilians back in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The federal government thought that inert object (machine gun) was too deadly for non military to have at their disposal. Mobsters back in the 1920s and 30s thought machine guns were real good at killing people. And they were. Government thought they could reduce the ease of killing by banning that inert object.
> >> Nope, they didn't ban machine guns. Read the act. They required a $100
> >> license to poses a "machine gun"
> >
> >OK. Its $200 for the National Firearms Act stamp. And a whole lot of federal forms and investigation too.
> >https://www.therange702.com/blog/can-you-legally-own-a-machine-gun/
> My mistake. I had thought it was $100
> >
> >But the USA licenses and regulates explosives too. Everyone buying, selling, using explosives has to have federal license. Why do we do that? Shouldn't everyone have the right to use explosives whenever they want? Isn't it a constitutional right? Explosives are inert objects too. Why should they be regulated and controlled? I don't recall anytime in history where the bad guys were blowing everyone and everything up with dynamite. FREEDOM to BLOW things UP!!!!!!!!!!!
> >https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states
> While your reference is certainly true in part is it true in dealing
> with gun powder? Does one require a license to poses or use gun power
> either Black or smokeless?

I am sure NO. Since ammunition reloading is a hobby of some shooters in the USA. They buy gunpowder at the local gun shop. I am sure the store selling it has to be licensed. And probably as part of that license it explicitly says you are legally required under liability to notify the government if anyone buys a suspicious amount of gunpowder. Such as if someone buys 100 pounds of nitrocellulose at once or in a small amount of time. Something suspicious.

>
> As an aside, as a kid I and a buddy used to make nitroglycerine,
> generally unsuccessfully. We used to put the "nitroglycerine" in empty
> rifle cases and throw them down into an abandoned mine... and every
> once in a while one of them would go "bang". Note: "bang" not "!BANG!"
> >Or did some freedom hating government bureaucrat decide to take that freedom away from Americans? He thought blowing things up was not a good thing for the average Joe on the street to do. Even though explosives are an inert object. And do lots of good things in activities like mining. Kind of like M-16 and AR-15 are appropriate for the military to have and use because they are good at killing people. Which the military does. But do bums walking on the street need to be able to kill people so easily? Or blow people and things up easily with explosives?
> Well, the M-16's being capable of full-automatic firing are banned or
> at least you need a $200 license to own one and the AK's not being
> anything but a "semi-automatic" require no license. But why should
> they. After all, semi automatic firearms, to my knowledge, have been
> available for more then 100 years - the Remington Model 8 was first
> sold in 1905.
>
> And "big Magazines" Oh Horrors!
> But of course the Luger pistol had a 30 round magazine way back in WW
> I days and several current pistols, the Glock 18 comes standard with a
> 20 round capacity and 31 round magazines are available and the Glock
> 17 can also be fitted with a 30 round magazine, and the Kel-Tec PMR 30
> has a standard capacity of 30 rounds.
>
> So, apparently semi automatic rifles aren't inherent scary and 30
> round magazines aren't scary so why when you combing a small bore semi
> automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine does it become such a
> fearsome weapon.
>
> I might comment that a full length magazines for a 12 gauge shotguns
> are available. In fact the "Century Arms Catamount Fury II" is a 12
> gauge shotgun that comes standard with a 30 round magazine, and I'm
> pretty sure that 30 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot is are more lethal
> then 30 rounds of .22 bullets.
>
> My own supposition is that those who rush about waving their hands in
> the air and screaming "Oh! My God! an AR! are people who, in fact,
> know very, very, little or nothing at all, about firearms.
>
> As Andrew mentions, there are something like 20 million AR type rifles
> in the U.S. If they were inherent dangerous then we should have a
> substantial number of rifle homicides each year and in fact the FBI
> tells us that we have about 300. Which is, I might add, some .0015% of
> the AR's or about 1 out of every 66,666 AR's . Or maybe another way of
> putting it might be that in 2018 there were 305 murders committed with
> all types of rifles and 854 died on bicycles.
>
> Danger! Danger!
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 17:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Roger Merriman
> <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
>
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 2/18/2022 10:52 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
>>>> russellseaton1@yahoo.com <ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:01:31 PM UTC-6, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:45:20 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The hospital and doctor I mentioned are "Government Hospitals". We
>>>>>>> have both Government and Private hospitals here. the major difference
>>>>>>> is that for a Thai citizen, they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum
>>>>>>> wages, per visit and anything that the doctor in the Government
>>>>>>> Hospital prescribes is covered by that 30 baht. The so called Private
>>>>>>> hospitals charges are as much as 10 times, or more, higher.
>>>>>> Whoa. I had to look that up, but 30 baht is almost one U.S. dollar for the visit
>>>>>> plus all medications!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And private hospitals charge nearly $10 per hospital visit? You know, here in
>>>>>> the U.S. those charges are a bit higher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>
>>>>> John did also say "they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum wages,"
>>>>>
>>>>> So $1 per hour is the minimum wage in Thailand. Here in the US of A it
>>>>> is $7.25. I suspect many folks would be dancing in the streets if they
>>>>> could only get a charge of $72.50 for a doctor office visit.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’d be quite pissed off at the sudden increase in cost.
>>>
>>> But Real Americans don't want none of that socialism! We LIKE giving
>>> our money to maintain the Health Care executive yachts!
>>>
>>> So what if our health is way worse than so many other countries? WE'RE
>>> NUMBER ONE! (In costs.)
>>>
>>>
>> I’ve been assured by American colleague’s of my wife over the years that
>> we’d of lost the house after the brain Injury, ie lots of scans high
>> intensity wards, rehabilitation over the years and so on!
>>
>> That essentially be bankrupt the idea of keeping one’s job let alone the
>> house…
>>
>> Roger Merriman
>
> I recently looked up the U.S. costs of a broken arm and the article
> stated some costs and then went on to say that it "might be as much as
> $10,000".

The other issue with insurance based systems is what they will cover and
length of time.

There is a myth within the brain Injury (world?) about no more recovery
after 2 years as that’s when the funding stops.

I’d imagine same goes for a number of things as well.

Roger Merriman

On 2/18/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> If you want to talk about devices that kill people I do believe that
> you really do need to consider bicycles... 116.77 times as many deaths
> as deaths in mass shootings. and on an annual basis in 2018 rifles
> killed 305 while bicycles killed 854.
>
> I and certainly Andrew have pointed out that homicides committed with
> these incredibly dangerious semi-automatic rifles is only a bit more
> then half those committed with hands and feet.
> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls

Advantages vs. disadvantages, John. Advantages vs. disadvantages.

Bikes offer a big advantage as simple transportation that provides life
saving exercise. I can post citations to at least five research papers
that concluded the benefits of bicycling greatly outweigh its risks.
Some of those were very specific in stating that biking saves many more
lives than it loses.

The disadvantages of AR style rifles are obvious: dozens of school
children killed, dozens of night club attendees, dozens of concert
goers, plus hundreds of others in smaller attacks, plus increased risk
to law enforcers rushing to shooting incidents.

What are the advantages of AR style rifles compared to traditional
rifles? Letting guys pretend they could be just like Rambo if "those
other people" invade?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/19/2022 10:48 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 8:05 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> If you want to talk about devices that kill people I do
>> believe that
>> you really do need to consider bicycles... 116.77 times as
>> many deaths
>> as deaths in mass shootings. and on an annual basis in
>> 2018 rifles
>> killed 305 while bicycles killed 854.
>>
>> I and certainly Andrew have pointed out that homicides
>> committed with
>> these incredibly dangerious semi-automatic rifles is only
>> a bit more
>> then half those committed with hands and feet.
>> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
>>
>
> Advantages vs. disadvantages, John. Advantages vs.
> disadvantages.
>
> Bikes offer a big advantage as simple transportation that
> provides life saving exercise. I can post citations to at
> least five research papers that concluded the benefits of
> bicycling greatly outweigh its risks. Some of those were
> very specific in stating that biking saves many more lives
> than it loses.
>
> The disadvantages of AR style rifles are obvious: dozens of
> school children killed, dozens of night club attendees,
> dozens of concert goers, plus hundreds of others in smaller
> attacks, plus increased risk to law enforcers rushing to
> shooting incidents.
>
> What are the advantages of AR style rifles compared to
> traditional rifles? Letting guys pretend they could be just
> like Rambo if "those other people" invade?
>

Hmmm. If they are only half as useful as bicycles they're of
roughly similar comparative lethality (~450 rifle homicides
vs ~750 bicycle deaths).

I have to note that 'utility' is necessarily subjective. For
me a bicycle (OK, at least two, summer & winter) is an
absolute necessity. To others, not so much. See also rifles,
pickup trucks, handlebar bags, usenet access...

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

On 2/19/2022 12:16 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> And "big Magazines" Oh Horrors!
> But of course the Luger pistol had a 30 round magazine way back in WW
> I days and several current pistols, the Glock 18 comes standard with a
> 20 round capacity and 31 round magazines are available and the Glock
> 17 can also be fitted with a 30 round magazine, and the Kel-Tec PMR 30
> has a standard capacity of 30 rounds.
>
> So, apparently semi automatic rifles aren't inherent scary and 30
> round magazines aren't scary so why when you combing a small bore semi
> automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine does it become such a
> fearsome weapon.
>
> I might comment that a full length magazines for a 12 gauge shotguns
> are available. In fact the "Century Arms Catamount Fury II" is a 12
> gauge shotgun that comes standard with a 30 round magazine, and I'm
> pretty sure that 30 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot is are more lethal
> then 30 rounds of .22 bullets.

Your argument does not prove high capacity magazines are perfectly fine.
I'd say it indicates the need for laws against high capacity magazines
on any firearm.

Advantages vs. disadvantages, John! A disadvantage of a high capacity
magazine is that it enables mass shootings and rapid fire gun battles,
including between gang members and against cops.

What are the advantages of high capacity magazines for non-criminal gun
users? Do hunters really need to put more than (say) ten bullets into a
rabbit or deer? Do target shooters really need fewer pauses to reload?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/18/2022 8:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:39:20 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/18/2022 12:56 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I think that is a fundamental difference between the U.S., today, and
>>> some other countries.
>>>
>>> About a year an Thai Army Sergeant checked a M-16 out of the armory
>>> and went into Korat City and first went to a Buddhist Temple and shot
>>> some people and then went to a large shopping complex and shot some
>>> more. The final score was 30 dead and (I believe) 50 wounded.
>>>
>>> And nobody even mentioned the rifle, rather the entire blame was
>>> placed squarely on the shoulders of the guy that did the shooting. ...
>>
>> So a Thai Army Sergeant checked an M-16 out of the armory to do a mass
>> shooting. How often does that happen?
>>
>> I gather that Thailand's gun restrictions are quite a bit tighter than
>> those of the U.S. Here in the U.S., if someone wants to do a mass
>> shooting, they don't bother with an Army armory. Almost anyone can buy a
>> compact, rapid fire highly modifiable combat-optimized gun and blast
>> away. That's partly why U.S. gun deaths are many times more common than
>> those in Thailand.
>>
>> Somehow, most Thais seem to do fine with tighter gun restrictions. I
>> assume you do as well. Have you ever needed a gun for self defense?
>>
>> Do you own an AR-style or AK-style rifle?
>
> As usual you dance, adroitly, around the theme. I pointed out that in
> the case of a Thai Army Sergeant who shot and killed some 30 people
> not a single news report, or for that matter, individual I talked to,
> ever even mentioned the type of weapon used. Both the News and
> individuals commented only of the fact that "the guy must have been
> insane", or words to that effect.

If "not a single news report" even mentioned the type of rifle, how did
you find out about it?

> As for not bothering with the Armory? Well, if you are a Senior
> Sergeant in the army I suspect that the armory is a very logical place
> to find a gun.

In the U.S., it's certainly NOT the most logical place to find a gun.
And that's a serious disadvantage of our gun policy.

Having all combat style rifles in armories could well be a trademark of
a "well regulated militia" as intended by this country's founders. What
we have is a largely unregulated pile of gun fans calling for ever less
regulation, and a gun fatality rate greatly exceeding almost all nations
on earth. It's absolutely ludicrous.

> But yes, there are stringent rules about gun ownership in Thailand
> which doesn't seem to bother the criminals a bit.

I submit the stringent rules DO "bother criminals" and DO reduce gun
violence. How else do you explain the huge difference between Thai and
U.S. firearm death rates?

> In fact just the
> other day there was a very professional "hit" carried out on an
> individual initially referred to as a "foreign businessman" who it
> turned out had been in organized crime, in Canada, I believe. The
> police have now identified two Canadians who apparently flew in,
> acquired pistols, shot the guy and flew back out.

Let's see: That's one killing you're citing. Nobody could type fast
enough to cite all the U.S. gun killings as they came in.

> My precis still is that rather then face reality, USians try to
> rationalize the facts. No, it really wasn't because the perpetrator
> was a rotten, no good, little SOB who tortured cats as a hobby, it was
> because he found a gun. "See, it was all the gun's fault!"

_Nobody_ uses that phrase. Try instead: "We shouldn't let crazy people
have guns."

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/18/2022 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Disregarding the ".22 caliber", my own choice would be a 12 gauge
> shotgun, either pump or automatic and probably loaded with "buck shot"
> as I believe that I can injure, incapacitate, whatever, more people
> per round fired then is possible with an AR-whatever.

And I agree. A shotgun is much more logical than an AR for home defense
- not that I need either for that purpose.

But shotguns don't make a guy feel like Rambo.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/19/2022 11:05 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/19/2022 12:16 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> And "big Magazines" Oh Horrors!
>> But of course the Luger pistol had a 30 round magazine way
>> back in WW
>> I days and several current pistols, the Glock 18 comes
>> standard with a
>> 20 round capacity and 31 round magazines are available and
>> the Glock
>> 17 can also be fitted with a 30 round magazine, and the
>> Kel-Tec PMR 30
>> has a standard capacity of 30 rounds.
>>
>> So, apparently semi automatic rifles aren't inherent scary
>> and 30
>> round magazines aren't scary so why when you combing a
>> small bore semi
>> automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine does it become
>> such a
>> fearsome weapon.
>>
>> I might comment that a full length magazines for a 12
>> gauge shotguns
>> are available. In fact the "Century Arms Catamount Fury
>> II" is a 12
>> gauge shotgun that comes standard with a 30 round
>> magazine, and I'm
>> pretty sure that 30 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot is are
>> more lethal
>> then 30 rounds of .22 bullets.
>
> Your argument does not prove high capacity magazines are
> perfectly fine. I'd say it indicates the need for laws
> against high capacity magazines on any firearm.
>
> Advantages vs. disadvantages, John! A disadvantage of a high
> capacity magazine is that it enables mass shootings and
> rapid fire gun battles, including between gang members and
> against cops.
>
> What are the advantages of high capacity magazines for
> non-criminal gun users? Do hunters really need to put more
> than (say) ten bullets into a rabbit or deer? Do target
> shooters really need fewer pauses to reload?
>

Ahem.
Fixed gear riders are certain that you are dragging around a
bunch of extraneous gearing.

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

On 2/19/2022 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Disregarding the ".22 caliber", my own choice would be a
>> 12 gauge
>> shotgun, either pump or automatic and probably loaded with
>> "buck shot"
>> as I believe that I can injure, incapacitate, whatever,
>> more people
>> per round fired then is possible with an AR-whatever.
>
> And I agree. A shotgun is much more logical than an AR for
> home defense - not that I need either for that purpose.
>
> But shotguns don't make a guy feel like Rambo.
>
>

How do you know what other men feel?

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

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 3:15:38 PM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 11:06:39 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 8:44:19 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 2/18/2022 10:52 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
> > > > russell...@yahoo.com <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 10:01:31 PM UTC-6, frkr...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 5:45:20 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> The hospital and doctor I mentioned are "Government Hospitals". We
> > > >>>> have both Government and Private hospitals here. the major difference
> > > >>>> is that for a Thai citizen, they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum
> > > >>>> wages, per visit and anything that the doctor in the Government
> > > >>>> Hospital prescribes is covered by that 30 baht. The so called Private
> > > >>>> hospitals charges are as much as 10 times, or more, higher.
> > > >>> Whoa. I had to look that up, but 30 baht is almost one U.S. dollar for the visit
> > > >>> plus all medications!
> > > >>>
> > > >>> And private hospitals charge nearly $10 per hospital visit? You know, here in
> > > >>> the U.S. those charges are a bit higher.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> - Frank Krygowski
> > > >>
> > > >> John did also say "they pay 30 baht - about 1 hour's minimum wages,"
> > > >>
> > > >> So $1 per hour is the minimum wage in Thailand. Here in the US of A it
> > > >> is $7.25. I suspect many folks would be dancing in the streets if they
> > > >> could only get a charge of $72.50 for a doctor office visit.
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > I’d be quite pissed off at the sudden increase in cost.
> > > But Real Americans don't want none of that socialism! We LIKE giving
> > > our money to maintain the Health Care executive yachts!
> > >
> > > So what if our health is way worse than so many other countries? WE'RE
> > > NUMBER ONE! (In costs.)
> > Nothing but complaints that after spending your life not having to work, you don't have anything to show for it. Jobst did very well for himself.
> And you make this statement based on what evidence? Did you personally know Jobst Brandt? Talk to him in person for many years? Brandt was famous in certain circles. He wrote a highly acclaimed book on wheel building. I do not know if this generated an enormous amount of money or not. I am associating money with "well". Bicycle wheel building books probably are not flying off the shelves at book stores or Amazon. He was a college professor and likely had engineer jobs outside of academia too. Did these provide success, joy? Did he have a family? Friends? Judging whether someone did "very well" takes a lot of information.
>
> One more question Tommy. How did Jobst Brandt get added into this thread? Was this thread about wheel building? Was this thread about touring the Alps using only a Carradice bag as a luggage carrier?
>
> George Washington was the greatest general in US history!!!!!! Ooh Ooh Ooh!!!!! I just did a Tommy and added in a completely irrelevant topic!!!!!!
> What was the reason you decided to go into a fiend that had poor pay and even more poor benefits?

Why would you speak on a subject you know nothing about? I know the sort of retirement pay that teachers get. My wife is a retired teacher and my son-in-law is presently a teacher who has told me what he will be getting when he retires. Do you believe that Frank's income from a no account university is going to be any better than that?

Frank could have worked as an engineer but he didn't. Jobst did and his retirement was like mine - he was independently wealthy. Far more than me since H-P offered a very substantial retirement pay on top of what he could save. I had to save my own retirement money.

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 3:20:52 PM UTC-8, russellseaton1@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 12:39:32 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/17/2022 10:04 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:34:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > >>
> > >> For Remington Arms, the charges alleged incitement in their
> > >> advertising, an unique CT statute and I agree it was poorly
> > >> done (although I didn't see it as criminal, merely stupid. I
> > >> am not a CT legislator).
> > >>
> > >> Trouble is, Remington Arms is in bankruptcy (a regular
> > >> process in the boom-bust arms industry) so the four
> > >> insurance carriers decided it was in their best interests to
> > >> settle. I do not know their analyses. Nor do you.
> > >>
> > >> Interesting side note: The AR-15 style rifle was chambered
> > >> .22LR.
> > >
> > > Fired fast enough, .22 LR can kill a lot of kids.
> > >
> > > - Frank Krygowski
> > >
> > I saw some disconnect between the lawsuit's emphasis on the
> > word 'combat' in the ad (no assertion that Ms Lanza ever saw
> > that ad) and the actual firearm with a .22 rimfire format.
> > Interesting side note only.
> > --
> > Andrew Muzi
> > <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> > Open every day since 1 April, 1971
> Well......the M-16 and many of the AR-15 style rifles is chambered in .223 (5.56 NATO). So it is sort of the exact same diameter bullet. .22 compared to .223. Almost identical diameter bullet. There are of course one or maybe even two other differences between a .22 rimfire (short or long or long rifle or Magnum) and a .223 center fire.

Such as a bullet with four times the weight and a cartridge with 5 times the powder? Please quit talking about things you don't know about. The only difference between a .223 and a .308 is accurate range.

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 5:15:57 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:35:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 9:43:11 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 17:12:49 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 3:25:21 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 14:43:49 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> >> >> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >My mistake, that was a typo which you always find so appalling Endocarditis
> >> >> Endocarditis might be a real problem, but not this time:
> >> >> <https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/endocarditis/symptoms-causes/syc-20352576>
> >> >> I had that problem on Sept 27, 2021. Symptoms were a very mild and
> >> >> continuous chest pain centered around the heart. Nothing else. After
> >> >> 3 days of mostly ignoring the problem, I was kidnapped by some friends
> >> >> and dropped off at the Dominican Hospital ER (emergency room) at
> >> >> around midnight. I spent 16 hrs getting tested for most everything
> >> >> possible, including covid-19 antibodies, but nothing was found. They
> >> >> were going to continue until something could be found when my
> >> >> cardiologist arrived and rescued me from might have turned out to be
> >> >> endless testing. Over the next 4 days, the pains slowly diminished
> >> >> and eventually disappeared not to return. At this time, I have no
> >> >> clue what caused it or any certainty that it was endocarditis.
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course, I asked the hospital doctor and my cardiologist if this was
> >> >> in any way connected my previous covid-19 vaccination shots on Apr 3
> >> >> and May 1, 2021. Unlikely because they were 6 months ago. I received
> >> >> the booster shot on Dec 5, 2021, which is also unlikely unless you
> >> >> believe reverse time shift causality inversion.
> >> >>
> >> >> What I find appalling is that you can't even write a one line
> >> >> correction without also insulting the person who found your mistake..
> >> >> Everyone makes typo and spelling errors, which would rarely need
> >> >> public attention. However, 100% wrong batting average and amazing
> >> >> wrong facts deserves some attention in the vain hope that you might do
> >> >> something to fix the problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> Incidentally, you forgot to provide a link to the JAMA article you
> >> >> mentioned.
> >>
> >> >https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712 Abstract 10712: Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning
> >> That's from AHA, not from JAMA. I'm interested in the JAMA article
> >> you mentioned because it allegedly claims:
> >> "... latest papers in the Journal of the American Medical Association
> >> are showing over a doubling of the chance of a heart attack for anyone
> >> that took the mRNA vaccines."
> >> I wanted to read all about this doubled risk, not about failed wonder
> >> drugs and treatments from other sources. If you're going to cite an
> >> unspecified article in JAMA, the least you could do is find the
> >> article so others can appreciate your amazing findings.
> >>
> >> Here's the AHA correction to the above AHA article:
> >> <https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIR.0000000000001053>
> >> No numbers:
> >> "No statistical comparison was done in this observational study."
> >> The alarmist warnings have been removed from the abstract due to lack
> >> of sufficient data to demonstrate anything.
> >> >Or you can get a better explanation of the paper from Dr. Campbell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEBGl8MVE-c&t=102s
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)>
> >> See section on his COVID-19 misinformation:
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)#COVID-19_misinformation>
> >>
> >> >Also see http://indepthnh.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/COVID-Report-from-Rep.-Weyler-3.pdf
> >>
> >> Dr Vladimir Zelenko is not a good source for Covid-19 information:
> >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Zelenko>
> >> His claim to fame was that he was one of the early promoters of the
> >> failed hydroxychloroquine treatment for COVID-19.
> >>
> >> "Has Dr. Zelenko Successfully Treated 669 Coronavirus Patients?"
> >> <https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/zelenko-669-coronavirus-patients/>
> >> Conclusion: Unproven.
> >
> >Jeff, why don't you pull a John on us and look it up on Google? I realize that would be a bit novel but you could probably find it down 100 pages since Google does not want real information out in the public.
> Well, Tommy, Google, or Wikipedia to be more exact, is, I find, a
> rather useful research tool as anyone can post to it. If you believe,
> for example, that the earth is flat you are welcome to post such a
> statement on "the Wiki"...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
>
> Of course, there is one weak point, from your viewpoint... That Damned
> Wiki wants you to post a reference for every one of the "facts" that
> you post, which would be a real handicap for people like you.
>
> For those that care, I find that the facts posted on Wikipedia are
> generally correct but the supposition drawn from the facts is
> sometimes not quite what I believe it should be (:-)

John, there is nothing wrong with looking things up on Google. But since Google has an extremely sharp political bias you are more likely to completely miss the story than get the one. My complaint is that you think that looking it up on Google somehow makes you an expert when most of the time it gives you no more than a hint of the truth.

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 9:06:02 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/19/2022 12:16 AM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > And "big Magazines" Oh Horrors!
> > But of course the Luger pistol had a 30 round magazine way back in WW
> > I days and several current pistols, the Glock 18 comes standard with a
> > 20 round capacity and 31 round magazines are available and the Glock
> > 17 can also be fitted with a 30 round magazine, and the Kel-Tec PMR 30
> > has a standard capacity of 30 rounds.
> >
> > So, apparently semi automatic rifles aren't inherent scary and 30
> > round magazines aren't scary so why when you combing a small bore semi
> > automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine does it become such a
> > fearsome weapon.
> >
> > I might comment that a full length magazines for a 12 gauge shotguns
> > are available. In fact the "Century Arms Catamount Fury II" is a 12
> > gauge shotgun that comes standard with a 30 round magazine, and I'm
> > pretty sure that 30 rounds of 12 gauge buckshot is are more lethal
> > then 30 rounds of .22 bullets.
> Your argument does not prove high capacity magazines are perfectly fine.
> I'd say it indicates the need for laws against high capacity magazines
> on any firearm.
>
> Advantages vs. disadvantages, John! A disadvantage of a high capacity
> magazine is that it enables mass shootings and rapid fire gun battles,
> including between gang members and against cops.
>
> What are the advantages of high capacity magazines for non-criminal gun
> users? Do hunters really need to put more than (say) ten bullets into a
> rabbit or deer? Do target shooters really need fewer pauses to reload?

Frank, everyone here has seen you comment on your opinion on high capacity magazines that aren't high capacity at all. And you are far more than a minority opinion. Most people couldn't care less if it was an infinite repeater as long as it was semiautomatic.

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 9:29:11 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/18/2022 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > Disregarding the ".22 caliber", my own choice would be a 12 gauge
> > shotgun, either pump or automatic and probably loaded with "buck shot"
> > as I believe that I can injure, incapacitate, whatever, more people
> > per round fired then is possible with an AR-whatever.
> And I agree. A shotgun is much more logical than an AR for home defense
> - not that I need either for that purpose.
>
> But shotguns don't make a guy feel like Rambo.

For just $300 you too can feel just like Rambo https://palmettostatearmory.com/jts-ak-12-ga-18-semi-auto-shotgun-black-m12ak.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=daily_deals&utm_campaign=20220218&utm_term=morning&utm_content=5165458465

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 10:19:44 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/19/2022 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/18/2022 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> Disregarding the ".22 caliber", my own choice would be a
> >> 12 gauge
> >> shotgun, either pump or automatic and probably loaded with
> >> "buck shot"
> >> as I believe that I can injure, incapacitate, whatever,
> >> more people
> >> per round fired then is possible with an AR-whatever.
> >
> > And I agree. A shotgun is much more logical than an AR for
> > home defense - not that I need either for that purpose.
> >
> > But shotguns don't make a guy feel like Rambo.
> >
> >
> How do you know what other men feel?

He assumes what others feel because of what it does to him. He pisses his pants simply seeing a gun so he thinks guns make others feel brave.

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 2:32:14 PM UTC-8, jeff.li...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 07:35:08 -0800 (PST), Tom Kunich
> <cycl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Jeff, why don't you pull a John on us and look it up on Google? I realize that would be a bit novel but you could probably find it down 100 pages since Google does not want real information out in the public.
> I already did. You said:
>
> >"... latest papers in the Journal of the American Medical Association
> > are showing over a doubling of the chance of a heart attack for anyone
> > that took the mRNA vaccines."
> Using Google search, I found and posted a link to latest JAMA issue
> at:
> <https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/currentissue>
> which allegedly contains an article verifying YOUR claim of increased
> chance of heart attack risk. Since it was YOUR claim, YOUR reference
> and YOUR allegation, I though it best if YOU would supply the
> necessary URL so that I could read the article which inspired your
> expert medical opinion.
>
> Since you can't seem to find the JAMA article, and have only been able
> to supply a rather different article from the AHA, it would seem to be
> that the JAMA article is yet another one of your fabrications intended
> to support one of your claims.
>
> Please note that I'm not writing to verify YOUR claims. I write to
> debunk them. You can do YOUR own research and provide YOUR own
> substantiations and references.

So I give you a more complete study from a more than reputable source and you cry because I didn't give you a much smaller study from JAMA because you don't know how to find it? Every posting shows your almost entire ignorance of anything and everything. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2788346?resultClick=1

Strange that you say I fabricated a study when you are incapable of even finding the work of major studies. Why is that? Do you need you hand held and be led through everything there is? This is why I spent 50 years in major science and you spent time with "marine radios".

On 2/19/2022 1:19 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/19/2022 11:29 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 9:03 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Disregarding the ".22 caliber", my own choice would be a
>>> 12 gauge
>>> shotgun, either pump or automatic and probably loaded with
>>> "buck shot"
>>> as I believe that I can injure, incapacitate, whatever,
>>> more people
>>> per round fired then is possible with an AR-whatever.
>>
>> And I agree. A shotgun is much more logical than an AR for
>> home defense - not that I need either for that purpose.
>>
>> But shotguns don't make a guy feel like Rambo.
>>
>>
>
> How do you know what other men feel?

I talk to them, Andrew. I have friends who have invited me to machine
gun shoots, who bragged about doing things there like blowing up junk
cars and refrigerators. I have a non-gun-nut friend who talked about how
shooting an AR "really makes you feel cool."

What's this pot-bellied dude
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW1LZKJmtbw
doing at 0:50 to 0:55 and 3:10 to 3:16 if not playing Rambo?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/19/2022 4:30 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> John, there is nothing wrong with looking things up on Google. But since Google has an extremely sharp political bias...

It's worse than that. Reality itself has a sharp politically bias
against the far right!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Sat, 19 Feb 2022 00:17:30 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 8:52:05 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/18/2022 8:24 PM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> > On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 7:05:28 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 18 Feb 2022 02:10:45 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 11:56:43 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >>>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2022 20:04:26 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
>> >>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 6:34:14 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> For Remington Arms, the charges alleged incitement in their
>> >>>>>> advertising, an unique CT statute and I agree it was poorly
>> >>>>>> done (although I didn't see it as criminal, merely stupid. I
>> >>>>>> am not a CT legislator).
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Trouble is, Remington Arms is in bankruptcy (a regular
>> >>>>>> process in the boom-bust arms industry) so the four
>> >>>>>> insurance carriers decided it was in their best interests to
>> >>>>>> settle. I do not know their analyses. Nor do you.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Interesting side note: The AR-15 style rifle was chambered
>> >>>>>> .22LR.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Fired fast enough, .22 LR can kill a lot of kids.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>> >>>> I think that is a fundamental difference between the U.S., today, and
>> >>>> some other countries.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> About a year an Thai Army Sergeant checked a M-16 out of the armory
>> >>>> and went into Korat City and first went to a Buddhist Temple and shot
>> >>>> some people and then went to a large shopping complex and shot some
>> >>>> more. The final score was 30 dead and (I believe) 50 wounded.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And nobody even mentioned the rifle, rather the entire blame was
>> >>>> placed squarely on the shoulders of the guy that did the shooting. In
>> >>>> the U.S., as in the case of the Remington Rifle, the blame seems to be
>> >>>> somehow attributed to the inert object rather then the human that
>> >>>> actually did the deed.
>> >>>
>> >>> I am assuming your second "paragraph" above should be "About a year ago a Thai Army Sergeant..."
>> >>>
>> >>> Thailand (you ae in Thailand right?) has about 70 million people. A little under one fourth the USA population of 330 million. A year ago you had a big mass killing. In the USA we have had a similar mass killing every few years. Double yours in 2017. One and half times more in 2016. Equal to yours in 2007, 2012, 2017. And half or so in many other years.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>> >>>
>> >>> Looking at the number of mass killings in the USA, and the body count at each, I'd bet the USA is still way ahead of Thailand in mass killing events. And because the USA is so far ahead of Thailand, we look at why that is so. Is it real easy to do a mass killing in the USA because its so easy to get a good gun to go mass killing with? I bet if Thailand has one or two or three of similar mass killings every single year, then Thailand would also look at why its so easy to do these mass killings. And if its determined that all the perpetrators are using M-16 rifles, then the government might restrict the access to these good mass killing guns. Also, because your mass killing was an Army Sergeant using an Army M-16 rifle, focusing on the gun would be analogous to focusing on the speed or racing car in a crash at the Indianapolis 500 race. The Army M-16 rifle used in wars by soldiers is too good at killing people? Why would you have any questions about the rifle? Access to it by
>> >>> an Army Sergeant? No. Ability to take it off base without lots of checks and balances and paperwork and explanations? Yes.
>> >> You are rationalizing things. But, if you wish to do that then:
>> >>
>> >> Using your reference there have been, from 1949 until 2018 some 442
>> >> killed in mass shootings while during the same period there were
>> >> 51,613 killed while riding bicycles.
>> >>
>> >> If you want to talk about devices that kill people I do believe that
>> >> you really do need to consider bicycles... 116.77 times as many deaths
>> >> as deaths in mass shootings. and on an annual basis in 2018 rifles
>> >> killed 305 while bicycles killed 854.
>> >>
>> >> I and certainly Andrew have pointed out that homicides committed with
>> >> these incredibly dangerious semi-automatic rifles is only a bit more
>> >> then half those committed with hands and feet.
>> >> https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
>> >>
>> >> But, of course, that wasn't the point at all. I was pointing out the
>> >> fallacy, in the U.S. of pointing at some inanimate object and saying,
>> >> "Gee if we just get rid of those dangerious things, why, there'd be no
>> >> crime at all."
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> And this attributing a crime to an inert object instead of the
>> >>>> individual that actually carried out the act seems to be a relatively
>> >>>> recent phenomena,
>> >>>
>> >>> No. In the USA the government banned machine guns from civilians back in 1934 with the National Firearms Act. The federal government thought that inert object (machine gun) was too deadly for non military to have at their disposal. Mobsters back in the 1920s and 30s thought machine guns were real good at killing people. And they were. Government thought they could reduce the ease of killing by banning that inert object.
>> >> Nope, they didn't ban machine guns. Read the act. They required a $100
>> >> license to poses a "machine gun"
>> >
>> > OK. Its $200 for the National Firearms Act stamp. And a whole lot of federal forms and investigation too.
>> > https://www.therange702.com/blog/can-you-legally-own-a-machine-gun/
>> >
>> > But the USA licenses and regulates explosives too. Everyone buying, selling, using explosives has to have federal license. Why do we do that? Shouldn't everyone have the right to use explosives whenever they want? Isn't it a constitutional right? Explosives are inert objects too. Why should they be regulated and controlled? I don't recall anytime in history where the bad guys were blowing everyone and everything up with dynamite. FREEDOM to BLOW things UP!!!!!!!!!!!
>> > https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-explosives-united-states
>> >
>> > Or did some freedom hating government bureaucrat decide to take that freedom away from Americans? He thought blowing things up was not a good thing for the average Joe on the street to do. Even though explosives are an inert object. And do lots of good things in activities like mining. Kind of like M-16 and AR-15 are appropriate for the military to have and use because they are good at killing people. Which the military does. But do bums walking on the street need to be able to kill people so easily? Or blow people and things up easily with explosives?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>> When I was growing up we didn't have a lot of
>> >>>> shootings but I do remember one as I went to school with the policeman
>> >>>> that did the shooting.The "victim" attacked the Cop with a garden hoe
>> >>>> and the cop shot him. There was a big to-do and a Grand Jury and the
>> >>>> newspapers were full of it and never a mention of a gun at all.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The old saying that "guns don't shoot people, people shoot people"
>> >>>> really is true.
>> >>>
>> >>> True. Except its also true that people can shoot LOTS of people if they have a gun that shoots lots of bullets real fast.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Cheers,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> John B.
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> Well, then! Glad to know the regulatory system and all the
>> experts are saving us from dynamite:
>>
>> https://www.fox43.com/article/news/nation-world/atm-explosions-thefts-philadelphia/507-bb610727-636c-4d54-ba70-87350a7a99af
>>
>> Works about as well as the century old worldwide Heroin ban.
>>
>> Arresting the guy (link above) is good policy. Death by
>> paperwork for innocent mining engineers isn't all that helpful.
>> --
>> Andrew Muzi
>> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>
>But Andy, your story is about someone who was arrested for selling home made dynamite. I am not a chemist, but I assume a competent chemist could acquire the various chemicals needed to make dynamite. Not sure if that is regulated under the federal laws or not. Maybe it only applies to corporate manufactured explosives.