On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:15:39 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:21:27 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> On 2/21/2022 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
>> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
>> >> > number is less then 1%.
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
>> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
>> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
>> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
>> >> > better to play solder???
>> >> >
>> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
>> >> > play solder...
>> >>
>> >> Or pretend they are as tough as a soldier. Or that they could have been
>> >> really effective as a soldier. Or that they can still react as well as a
>> >> trained soldier if "other people" suddenly mount an attack on their
>> >> little suburban castle.
>> >>
>> >> It's funny that my family members and close friends who actually
>> >> enlisted or were drafted, and _especially_ the ones who actually saw
>> >> combat, have absolutely no interest in combat-style rifles, even if they
>> >> do shoot targets and hunt.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> - Frank Krygowski
>> >
>> >My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
military. But there are many families, particularly in the south, who
have a long lineage of fathers, grandfathers, sons, great grandfathers
serving in the military. So.......
>> >
>> From my own experiences there is a lot of difference between both the
>> branch of service and your job in the service. An Infantryman crawling
>> through the mud and a Navy Chief Petty Officer managing, say the
>> engine room on a ship.
>>
>> I enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted, After about 1 year
>> the Air force sent me to Japan to work on Bombers at the tail end of
>> the Korean War. I liked it so well I stayed 8 years. I came back and a
>> few years later they shipped me off to Vietnam and I liked it and
>> would have staid longer if they had let me, I came back and a year or
>> so later they shipped me off to Thailand, and I liked that too and
>> stayed a while. More then half of my 20 years I spent overseas and
>> liked every bit of it. And all the while there are guys bitching and
>> complaining about being "Here". Wherever "here" happened to be.
>> >I do not know and don't know of any studies where they looked at combat veterans who saw actual combat service and whether their children served later. That would be a revealing study I think.
>> Well there are certainly examples of officers who are second or more
>> generation servicemen. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of a
>> serving Army Captain and two of his mother's brothers fought for the
>> South in the Civil war.
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I think you missed my main point. I was referring to infantry men. Men who saw combat up front. Who were on the administering and receiving end of death, gunfire. Whether the progeny of those men had a favorable opinion of military service. I am not referring to officers in command. Officer and infantry shooting and being shot at in the mud are not exactly comparable.

Well, perhaps I did, I was relying specifically to your statement
that, "My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
military".

I did a quick check and it seems that, in 1953, some 22% of all
military were stationed in foreign countries and a substantial
percentage of that 22% was not stationed in a battle zone.

But having said I knew a number of "combat personal" who obviously
didn't object to being in combat.

I re-met a Major who I had known way back when he was a Lieutenant
pilot on the B-29 I worked on during the closing phases of the Korean
war. He had just received his 3rd or 4th Air Medal for landing under
fire to re supply a Special Forces camp. I commented on his medals and
he replied, "Well, somebody had to do it".

I've mentioned the Special Forces friend who had volunteered for three
tours in Vietnam, all in combat and wounded three times. I might add
that his only reason for leaving Special Forces was his wife's demand
that he either leave or she would. Apparently she had fainted "dead
away" on the front porch three times when notified that her husband
had been wounded and didn't want any more of it.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>> least as I
>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>> stricken by
>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>
> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
> pursue a nonsense argument.
>
> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>
> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
> something similar.
>
> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
> similar death of a child even more so.
>
> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
> allowed to happen.
>
> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
> criminal prosecution.
>
> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>
> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
> the weapon used.
>

Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but
policy based on anomalies doesn't always work out well.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/

Versus your average Tuesday:
https://cwbchicago.com/

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

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:07:02 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:19:32 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:30:36 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:47:57 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> On 2/21/2022 7:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> > On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 13:29:59 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> > <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 9:48:20 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> >>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 6:06:18 PM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>>> On 2/20/2022 2:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >>>>> On 2/20/2022 11:11 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On 2/20/2022 11:41 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>> On 2/19/2022 6:25 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>>> 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?
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>> Oh, full auto. I thought we were discussing AR-15.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3gf_5MR4tE
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Unassisted. And how charming that he's choosing human
>> >> >>>>>> silhouettes!
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Really? Standard target shapes trigger you?
>> >> >>>>> Perhaps undead humans be better?
>> >> >>>>> http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/rangnat.jpg
>> >> >>>> Let's review. I said that whatever their other uses, AR rifles are
>> >> >>>> optimized for combat; that was the essence of the design. And AR guys
>> >> >>>> play at being Rambo. They imagine themselves in combat. I gave examples
>> >> >>>> of guys I know well, and I linked a video of an out of shape middle aged
>> >> >>>> guy doing precisely that. The use of a human silhouette confirms the
>> >> >>>> mentality.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> You implied it didn't count because he was on full auto.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> But some guys can shoot very fast without full auto. They can fit bump
>> >> >>>> stocks, or just spend hours developing a really fast finger. Pot bellied
>> >> >>>> Rambos can feel good about themselves as long as their gun looks tough
>> >> >>>> and they can pretend to be blasting bad guys.
>> >> >>> What is sold as an AR15 to the public are not actually the militarized guns so why do you keep insisting they are? Is your position that lying about something is acceptable to maintain your position?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Correct. And no one on this forum has said they are the exact same gun. But everyone who has an education, also knows the AR-15 was developed during the 1950s as a military gun. And it was later adopted as the M-16 rifle by the USA military. And many other countries around the world use it too. And to capitalize on that military contract and success, many companies have since sold a civilian version of the AR-15 to the public. And done very well monetarily. Just like every gun manufacturer makes a Colt model 1911 pistol. Just like the original military version adopted back around WW1. Money to be made with the connection to the military. And remember the Humvee? Made by AM General. They also made a civilian model of the Humvee. And later called it the Hummer. It was not the same as the military Humvees. They looked the same. But had different motors and transmissions and axles and driveshafts and interiors. They were in reality 99% different than what the militar
>> >> y
>> >> >> used. But everyone could still say they had a military Humvee truck. Just like the Army Commandos used. Grunt grunt.
>> >> >
>> >> > I think I would have to argue a bit about your (apparent) assumption
>> >> > that some firearms are accepted largely because they are associated
>> >> > with the military.
>> >> >
>> >> > The Colt 1911, for example is, or was, the only large caliber,
>> >> > automatic, well semi-automatic to be exact, pistol available for years
>> >> > and years. So if one wanted an "automatic", large bore pistol, there
>> >> > was only one choice. NRA pistol shooting was for .22, Any center fire,
>> >> > and .45, pistols only and yes you could shoot a .45 caliber revolver -
>> >> > I had a shooting buddy that did - but with the handicap of having to
>> >> > thumb cock the gun for every shot.
>> >> >
>> >> > As for long guns, the NRA sold the 1903 Springfield rifle for some
>> >> > unimaginably small sum but I don't remember people marching about with
>> >> > the military version. The action and barrel used for the basis of a
>> >> > "civilian" gun, yes, but not the full stock with sling, military
>> >> > version.
>> >> >
>> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
>> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
>> >> > number is less then 1%.
>> >> >
>> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
>> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
>> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
>> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
>> >> > better to play solder???
>> >> >
>> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
>> >> > play solder, and Andrew tells us that some 20 million - about 14% of
>> >> > the U.S. male population over 10 years old - have AR type rifles. Can
>> >> > it be?
>> >> >
>> >> Uh, the Luger folding link 9mm pistol predates the Browning
>> >> M1911A1 by a few years and both are still made.
>> >>
>> >> https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/ItemImages/000479/20035050_1_lg.jpeg
>> >>
>> >> I don't know about elsewhere but here in USA the 1911 is
>> >> only recently being displaced by smaller lighter 9mm and .40
>> >> 'compacts' generally striker type
>> >>
>> >> http://www.defensereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CZ_P-10_C_Compact_Striker-Fired_9mm_Combat_Tactical_Pistol_SHOT_Show_2017_David_Crane_DefenseReview.com_DR_3.jpg
>> >>
>> >> And regarding the Springfield 1903 reference I assume you
>> >> meant the CMP surplus rifle program:
>> >> https://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/rifle-sales/
>> >>
>> >> Currently they're offering WWII surplus M1 Garands.
>> >>
>> >> I see a very wide spectrum of Americans at ranges; fathers
>> >> with daughters, pals after work, all ages, incomes and
>> >> flavors. What I don't see are guys in fatigues playing soldier.
>> >> --
>> >> Andrew Muzi
>> >> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
>> >> Open every day since 1 April, 1971
>> >
>> >https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/photos-pro-trump-supporters-breach-the-capitol-building/2531640/
>> >Second picture down. I'd say they are trying to look soldier to me. Kind of desert storm fatigues with tan sand colored clothing. Eighth picture has a guy in wood camouflage clothes. Hunting, not war. But still kind of soldier looking. There are pictures on this webpage of actual Capitol Police SWAT team members and official real police members too. They are all in full uniforms. No pretend with them.
>> Try
>> https://duckduckgo.com/?q=U.S.+serviceman&iax=images&ia=images
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Andy asked about "playing soldier". And my link was about people dressing up in fake uniform military looking clothes and playing they were soldiers. YOUR link was pictures of REAL people wearing real uniforms. Your pictures were not "playing soldier". They were soldiers. Play and real are very different.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:57:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at least as I
>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less, stricken by
>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>
>You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to pursue a
>nonsense argument.
>
>Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal, nor have
>identical feelings about all deaths.
>
>The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is one thing.
>Perhaps it is regrettable depending on conditions, but often people
>remark "Well, it was time" or something similar.
>
>The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger person is
>generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A similar death of a child
>even more so.
>
>An accidental death of those people triggers yet more regret, and may
>lead to anger at how such a thing could be allowed to happen.
>
>The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and criminal
>prosecution.
>
>The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>
>The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered truly
>heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of the weapon used.

Well Frank, you've carefully clipped the original post and my reply
but as I remember you said something about my wife dying and I was
ridiculing your assertion that it would make a difference how she
died.

But to be perfectly clear if (God forbid) my wife was to die, in any
manner, I would be devastated with grief. Albeit that we've been
married for 50 years and she has lived a "full life".

And I find your assertion that if your wife were (God forbid) to die
you'd just shrug your shoulders and comment ""Well, it was time" as
almost unbelievably inhuman.

For God's sake, my neighbor had two dogs and one had to be "put down"
die to sickness and the remaining dog "mopped around" for days
obviously missing her "friend".
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 7:42:38 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 08:12:02 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
> >On 2/22/2022 4:58 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 8:47:57 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
> >>>
> >>> What I don't see are guys in fatigues playing soldier.
> >>
> >> Denial isn't a river in egypt:
> >> https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/410/2020/12/oathkeepers2a.png
> >>
> >Oath Keepers are all ex-military or ex-LE. A definite
> >selection in their subgroup.
> Re the picture of the Oath Keepers... They state that they will "fight
> a bloody civil war and revolution against the Biden/Harris
> administration.
>
> When will they start the war? The post seems to be dated 2 years ago,
> and no insurrection yet.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

Two years ago would have been February 2020. 9 months before the elections.. I'm not even sure Biden had won the primaries by then. But they were probably prescient about Biden/Harris. They knew Biden would pick a black woman as his VP before he even announced it. They are complaining and screaming about Biden picking a black woman for the Supreme Court even though he did announce that ahead of time. Seems to me whether Biden announces what he is going to do ahead of time or not, the other side is against it. Or are they just against black women?

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 7:57:49 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
> >
> > Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at least as I
> > understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less, stricken by
> > grief depending on the cause of death.
> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to pursue a
> nonsense argument.
>
> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal, nor have
> identical feelings about all deaths.
>
> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is one thing.
> Perhaps it is regrettable depending on conditions, but often people
> remark "Well, it was time" or something similar.
>
> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger person is
> generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A similar death of a child
> even more so.
>
> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more regret, and may
> lead to anger at how such a thing could be allowed to happen.
>
> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and criminal
> prosecution.
>
> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>
> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered truly
> heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of the weapon used.

No no no. Republicans say it was staged.
https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Outrage-in-Newtown-after-Republican-congresswoman-15891270.php

>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:15:39 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:21:27 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> On 2/21/2022 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
> >> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
> >> >> > number is less then 1%.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
> >> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
> >> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
> >> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
> >> >> > better to play solder???
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
> >> >> > play solder...
> >> >>
> >> >> Or pretend they are as tough as a soldier. Or that they could have been
> >> >> really effective as a soldier. Or that they can still react as well as a
> >> >> trained soldier if "other people" suddenly mount an attack on their
> >> >> little suburban castle.
> >> >>
> >> >> It's funny that my family members and close friends who actually
> >> >> enlisted or were drafted, and _especially_ the ones who actually saw
> >> >> combat, have absolutely no interest in combat-style rifles, even if they
> >> >> do shoot targets and hunt.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >> >
> >> >My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
> military. But there are many families, particularly in the south, who
> have a long lineage of fathers, grandfathers, sons, great grandfathers
> serving in the military. So.......
> >> >
> >> From my own experiences there is a lot of difference between both the
> >> branch of service and your job in the service. An Infantryman crawling
> >> through the mud and a Navy Chief Petty Officer managing, say the
> >> engine room on a ship.
> >>
> >> I enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted, After about 1 year
> >> the Air force sent me to Japan to work on Bombers at the tail end of
> >> the Korean War. I liked it so well I stayed 8 years. I came back and a
> >> few years later they shipped me off to Vietnam and I liked it and
> >> would have staid longer if they had let me, I came back and a year or
> >> so later they shipped me off to Thailand, and I liked that too and
> >> stayed a while. More then half of my 20 years I spent overseas and
> >> liked every bit of it. And all the while there are guys bitching and
> >> complaining about being "Here". Wherever "here" happened to be.
> >> >I do not know and don't know of any studies where they looked at combat veterans who saw actual combat service and whether their children served later. That would be a revealing study I think.
> >> Well there are certainly examples of officers who are second or more
> >> generation servicemen. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of a
> >> serving Army Captain and two of his mother's brothers fought for the
> >> South in the Civil war.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> John B.
> >
> >I think you missed my main point. I was referring to infantry men. Men who saw combat up front. Who were on the administering and receiving end of death, gunfire. Whether the progeny of those men had a favorable opinion of military service. I am not referring to officers in command. Officer and infantry shooting and being shot at in the mud are not exactly comparable.
> Well, perhaps I did, I was relying specifically to your statement
> that, "My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
> military".
> I did a quick check and it seems that, in 1953, some 22% of all
> military were stationed in foreign countries and a substantial
> percentage of that 22% was not stationed in a battle zone.

My Dad served in the Army in the mid 1950s. After the Korean war. Before the Vietnam war. The sweet spot one might say for those forced to enlist in the military. An uncle also served about this same time. My Dad was officially outside the United States of America. He was at a base in Anchorage. In the Alaskan Territory. He would not have fit into your 22% in foreign countries comment. But he would be in the 22% not in a battle zone.

>
> But having said I knew a number of "combat personal" who obviously
> didn't object to being in combat.
>
> I re-met a Major who I had known way back when he was a Lieutenant
> pilot on the B-29 I worked on during the closing phases of the Korean
> war. He had just received his 3rd or 4th Air Medal for landing under
> fire to re supply a Special Forces camp. I commented on his medals and
> he replied, "Well, somebody had to do it".
>
> I've mentioned the Special Forces friend who had volunteered for three
> tours in Vietnam, all in combat and wounded three times. I might add
> that his only reason for leaving Special Forces was his wife's demand
> that he either leave or she would. Apparently she had fainted "dead
> away" on the front porch three times when notified that her husband
> had been wounded and didn't want any more of it.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:17:03 PM UTC-6, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
> >> least as I
> >> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
> >> stricken by
> >> grief depending on the cause of death.
> >
> > You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
> > pursue a nonsense argument.
> >
> > Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
> > nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
> >
> > The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
> > one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
> > conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
> > something similar.
> >
> > The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
> > person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
> > similar death of a child even more so.
> >
> > An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
> > regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
> > allowed to happen.
> >
> > The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
> > criminal prosecution.
> >
> > The murder of a child, even more outrage.
> >
> > The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
> > truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
> > the weapon used.
> >
> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but
> policy based on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/

44 people dead, 38 children.
I looked up "dynamite regulations" on Google. This is what came up:
"When did dynamite become illegal?
In 1970, federal legislation restricted explosives to people who'd been granted a special permit by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Today, nobody without a permit is even allowed to carry a stick of dynamite across a room, to say nothing of actually buying one or lighting it off."
So it took 43 years for the government to properly regulate dynamite. Hmmmmm.

As I wrote above, 44 total dead, 38 of which were children in the school bombing in 1927.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
Mass shootings in the USA. Many of them at schools. Using semi automatic rifles. Such as the AR-15 style. Virginia Tech 2007 32 dead (but this was with semi auto pistols so does not count), Sandy Hook elementary 2012 27 dead semi auto rifle, Stoneman Douglas high school 2018 17 dead semi auto rifle, Columbine high school 1999 13 dead semi auto carbine (short rifle). Wikipedia only has the top 25 mass killings listed. Mass shootings actually.. The 1927 Bath school bombing and the Oklahoma federal building bombing are not listed.

27+17+13=57 dead school killings with semi auto rifles. Bigger than the 44 dead from the bombing.

Seems to me killing kids at schools with semi auto rifles is a problem. But I guess there is always the "it wasn't my kid that got killed so I don't care" excuse.

The school killings above were in 2007 (doesn't count), 2012, 2018, and 1999. 43 years from the last one would be 2051. Maybe we will get some regulation then.

>
> Versus your average Tuesday:
> https://cwbchicago.com/
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:16:09 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 7:42:38 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 08:12:02 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 2/22/2022 4:58 AM, funkma...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 8:47:57 PM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> What I don't see are guys in fatigues playing soldier.
>> >>
>> >> Denial isn't a river in egypt:
>> >> https://wp-media.patheos.com/blogs/sites/410/2020/12/oathkeepers2a.png
>> >>
>> >Oath Keepers are all ex-military or ex-LE. A definite
>> >selection in their subgroup.
>> Re the picture of the Oath Keepers... They state that they will "fight
>> a bloody civil war and revolution against the Biden/Harris
>> administration.
>>
>> When will they start the war? The post seems to be dated 2 years ago,
>> and no insurrection yet.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>Two years ago would have been February 2020. 9 months before the elections. I'm not even sure Biden had won the primaries by then. But they were probably prescient about Biden/Harris. They knew Biden would pick a black woman as his VP before he even announced it. They are complaining and screaming about Biden picking a black woman for the Supreme Court even though he did announce that ahead of time. Seems to me whether Biden announces what he is going to do ahead of time or not, the other side is against it. Or are they just against black women?

My personal feeling is that sex, color, or whatever, should not be a
criteria for any government position, but that is basically wishful
thinking as any politician will tell you. If you have an Italian name
then you appeal to the "Italian" population although it is likely that
these "Italians" are all 3rd or 4th generation American. Or Irish, or
whatever.

Purely from reading the news here it seemed to me that Biden selected
people more on the basis of color, or whatever, for political reasons
then simply to get the best person for the post... although certainly
I could be wrong. Perhaps they are the most qualified?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 9:11:14 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:57:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at least as I
> >> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less, stricken by
> >> grief depending on the cause of death.
> >
> >You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to pursue a
> >nonsense argument.
> >
> >Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal, nor have
> >identical feelings about all deaths.
> >
> >The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is one thing.
> >Perhaps it is regrettable depending on conditions, but often people
> >remark "Well, it was time" or something similar.
> >
> >The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger person is
> >generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A similar death of a child
> >even more so.
> >
> >An accidental death of those people triggers yet more regret, and may
> >lead to anger at how such a thing could be allowed to happen.
> >
> >The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and criminal
> >prosecution.
> >
> >The murder of a child, even more outrage.
> >
> >The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered truly
> >heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of the weapon used.
> Well Frank, you've carefully clipped the original post and my reply
> but as I remember you said something about my wife dying and I was
> ridiculing your assertion that it would make a difference how she
> died.
>
> But to be perfectly clear if (God forbid) my wife was to die, in any
> manner, I would be devastated with grief. Albeit that we've been
> married for 50 years and she has lived a "full life".
>
> And I find your assertion that if your wife were (God forbid) to die
> you'd just shrug your shoulders and comment ""Well, it was time" as
> almost unbelievably inhuman.

No, wrong. A good friend of mine his wife died about 5 years ago. From uterus cancer. She suffered with it for 4-5 years or so. No one just shrugged their shoulders, but everyone was aware of her declining health. And when the end came, no one was shocked or surprised. Everyone was sad, but she was no longer suffering. No one screamed and yelled and wailed. When someone old dies or someone who has been suffering dies or had a fatal disease for a long time, everyone accepts the death. Without the same anguish from an unexpected death or death of a child.

>
> For God's sake, my neighbor had two dogs and one had to be "put down"
> die to sickness and the remaining dog "mopped around" for days
> obviously missing her "friend".
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:32:47 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:15:39 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:21:27 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> On 2/21/2022 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
>> >> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
>> >> >> > number is less then 1%.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
>> >> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
>> >> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
>> >> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
>> >> >> > better to play solder???
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
>> >> >> > play solder...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Or pretend they are as tough as a soldier. Or that they could have been
>> >> >> really effective as a soldier. Or that they can still react as well as a
>> >> >> trained soldier if "other people" suddenly mount an attack on their
>> >> >> little suburban castle.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's funny that my family members and close friends who actually
>> >> >> enlisted or were drafted, and _especially_ the ones who actually saw
>> >> >> combat, have absolutely no interest in combat-style rifles, even if they
>> >> >> do shoot targets and hunt.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> - Frank Krygowski
>> >> >
>> >> >My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
>> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
>> military. But there are many families, particularly in the south, who
>> have a long lineage of fathers, grandfathers, sons, great grandfathers
>> serving in the military. So.......
>> >> >
>> >> From my own experiences there is a lot of difference between both the
>> >> branch of service and your job in the service. An Infantryman crawling
>> >> through the mud and a Navy Chief Petty Officer managing, say the
>> >> engine room on a ship.
>> >>
>> >> I enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted, After about 1 year
>> >> the Air force sent me to Japan to work on Bombers at the tail end of
>> >> the Korean War. I liked it so well I stayed 8 years. I came back and a
>> >> few years later they shipped me off to Vietnam and I liked it and
>> >> would have staid longer if they had let me, I came back and a year or
>> >> so later they shipped me off to Thailand, and I liked that too and
>> >> stayed a while. More then half of my 20 years I spent overseas and
>> >> liked every bit of it. And all the while there are guys bitching and
>> >> complaining about being "Here". Wherever "here" happened to be.
>> >> >I do not know and don't know of any studies where they looked at combat veterans who saw actual combat service and whether their children served later. That would be a revealing study I think.
>> >> Well there are certainly examples of officers who are second or more
>> >> generation servicemen. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of a
>> >> serving Army Captain and two of his mother's brothers fought for the
>> >> South in the Civil war.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> John B.
>> >
>> >I think you missed my main point. I was referring to infantry men. Men who saw combat up front. Who were on the administering and receiving end of death, gunfire. Whether the progeny of those men had a favorable opinion of military service. I am not referring to officers in command. Officer and infantry shooting and being shot at in the mud are not exactly comparable.
>> Well, perhaps I did, I was relying specifically to your statement
>> that, "My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
>> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
>> military".
>> I did a quick check and it seems that, in 1953, some 22% of all
>> military were stationed in foreign countries and a substantial
>> percentage of that 22% was not stationed in a battle zone.
>
>My Dad served in the Army in the mid 1950s. After the Korean war. Before the Vietnam war. The sweet spot one might say for those forced to enlist in the military. An uncle also served about this same time. My Dad was officially outside the United States of America. He was at a base in Anchorage. In the Alaskan Territory. He would not have fit into your 22% in foreign countries comment. But he would be in the 22% not in a battle zone.

I think at the time Alaska was referred to as outside the Continental
U.S." at I remember CONUS or OCONUS as being a defining term although
I never knew anyone stationed in Alaska but I'm pretty sure it was
applied to people stationed in Hawaii.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>>> least as I
>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>>> stricken by
>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>>
>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>>
>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>>
>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
>> something similar.
>>
>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
>> similar death of a child even more so.
>>
>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
>> allowed to happen.
>>
>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
>> criminal prosecution.
>>
>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>>
>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
>> the weapon used.
>>
>
> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy based
> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>
> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/

A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to mock
a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."

I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
call for free use and possession of bombs?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 10:14:13 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:32:47 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:15:39 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:21:27 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >> On 2/21/2022 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
> >> >> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
> >> >> >> > number is less then 1%.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
> >> >> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
> >> >> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
> >> >> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
> >> >> >> > better to play solder???
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
> >> >> >> > play solder...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Or pretend they are as tough as a soldier. Or that they could have been
> >> >> >> really effective as a soldier. Or that they can still react as well as a
> >> >> >> trained soldier if "other people" suddenly mount an attack on their
> >> >> >> little suburban castle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's funny that my family members and close friends who actually
> >> >> >> enlisted or were drafted, and _especially_ the ones who actually saw
> >> >> >> combat, have absolutely no interest in combat-style rifles, even if they
> >> >> >> do shoot targets and hunt.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
> >> military. But there are many families, particularly in the south, who
> >> have a long lineage of fathers, grandfathers, sons, great grandfathers
> >> serving in the military. So.......
> >> >> >
> >> >> From my own experiences there is a lot of difference between both the
> >> >> branch of service and your job in the service. An Infantryman crawling
> >> >> through the mud and a Navy Chief Petty Officer managing, say the
> >> >> engine room on a ship.
> >> >>
> >> >> I enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted, After about 1 year
> >> >> the Air force sent me to Japan to work on Bombers at the tail end of
> >> >> the Korean War. I liked it so well I stayed 8 years. I came back and a
> >> >> few years later they shipped me off to Vietnam and I liked it and
> >> >> would have staid longer if they had let me, I came back and a year or
> >> >> so later they shipped me off to Thailand, and I liked that too and
> >> >> stayed a while. More then half of my 20 years I spent overseas and
> >> >> liked every bit of it. And all the while there are guys bitching and
> >> >> complaining about being "Here". Wherever "here" happened to be.
> >> >> >I do not know and don't know of any studies where they looked at combat veterans who saw actual combat service and whether their children served later. That would be a revealing study I think.
> >> >> Well there are certainly examples of officers who are second or more
> >> >> generation servicemen. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of a
> >> >> serving Army Captain and two of his mother's brothers fought for the
> >> >> South in the Civil war.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >>
> >> >> John B.
> >> >
> >> >I think you missed my main point. I was referring to infantry men. Men who saw combat up front. Who were on the administering and receiving end of death, gunfire. Whether the progeny of those men had a favorable opinion of military service. I am not referring to officers in command. Officer and infantry shooting and being shot at in the mud are not exactly comparable..
> >> Well, perhaps I did, I was relying specifically to your statement
> >> that, "My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
> >> military".
> >> I did a quick check and it seems that, in 1953, some 22% of all
> >> military were stationed in foreign countries and a substantial
> >> percentage of that 22% was not stationed in a battle zone.
> >
> >My Dad served in the Army in the mid 1950s. After the Korean war. Before the Vietnam war. The sweet spot one might say for those forced to enlist in the military. An uncle also served about this same time. My Dad was officially outside the United States of America. He was at a base in Anchorage. In the Alaskan Territory. He would not have fit into your 22% in foreign countries comment. But he would be in the 22% not in a battle zone.
> I think at the time Alaska was referred to as outside the Continental
> U.S." at I remember CONUS or OCONUS as being a defining term although
> I never knew anyone stationed in Alaska but I'm pretty sure it was
> applied to people stationed in Hawaii.

Alaska was inside the territorial US. As you point out it was no different than Hawaii.

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:27:37 AM UTC-8, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
> >>> least as I
> >>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
> >>> stricken by
> >>> grief depending on the cause of death.
> >>
> >> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
> >> pursue a nonsense argument.
> >>
> >> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
> >> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
> >>
> >> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
> >> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
> >> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
> >> something similar.
> >>
> >> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
> >> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
> >> similar death of a child even more so.
> >>
> >> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
> >> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
> >> allowed to happen.
> >>
> >> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
> >> criminal prosecution.
> >>
> >> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
> >>
> >> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
> >> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
> >> the weapon used.
> >>
> >
> > Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy based
> > on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
> >
> > https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to mock
> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>
> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
> call for free use and possession of bombs?

When knives are outlawed only Chef's will have knives. Too bad that your arguments are so transparently stupid.

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:32:47 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:15:39 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:21:27 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >> On 2/21/2022 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
> >> >> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
> >> >> >> > number is less then 1%.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
> >> >> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
> >> >> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
> >> >> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
> >> >> >> > better to play solder???
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
> >> >> >> > play solder...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Or pretend they are as tough as a soldier. Or that they could have been
> >> >> >> really effective as a soldier. Or that they can still react as well as a
> >> >> >> trained soldier if "other people" suddenly mount an attack on their
> >> >> >> little suburban castle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's funny that my family members and close friends who actually
> >> >> >> enlisted or were drafted, and _especially_ the ones who actually saw
> >> >> >> combat, have absolutely no interest in combat-style rifles, even if they
> >> >> >> do shoot targets and hunt.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
> >> military. But there are many families, particularly in the south, who
> >> have a long lineage of fathers, grandfathers, sons, great grandfathers
> >> serving in the military. So.......
> >> >> >
> >> >> From my own experiences there is a lot of difference between both the
> >> >> branch of service and your job in the service. An Infantryman crawling
> >> >> through the mud and a Navy Chief Petty Officer managing, say the
> >> >> engine room on a ship.
> >> >>
> >> >> I enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted, After about 1 year
> >> >> the Air force sent me to Japan to work on Bombers at the tail end of
> >> >> the Korean War. I liked it so well I stayed 8 years. I came back and a
> >> >> few years later they shipped me off to Vietnam and I liked it and
> >> >> would have staid longer if they had let me, I came back and a year or
> >> >> so later they shipped me off to Thailand, and I liked that too and
> >> >> stayed a while. More then half of my 20 years I spent overseas and
> >> >> liked every bit of it. And all the while there are guys bitching and
> >> >> complaining about being "Here". Wherever "here" happened to be.
> >> >> >I do not know and don't know of any studies where they looked at combat veterans who saw actual combat service and whether their children served later. That would be a revealing study I think.
> >> >> Well there are certainly examples of officers who are second or more
> >> >> generation servicemen. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of a
> >> >> serving Army Captain and two of his mother's brothers fought for the
> >> >> South in the Civil war.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >>
> >> >> John B.
> >> >
> >> >I think you missed my main point. I was referring to infantry men. Men who saw combat up front. Who were on the administering and receiving end of death, gunfire. Whether the progeny of those men had a favorable opinion of military service. I am not referring to officers in command. Officer and infantry shooting and being shot at in the mud are not exactly comparable..
> >> Well, perhaps I did, I was relying specifically to your statement
> >> that, "My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
> >> military".
> >> I did a quick check and it seems that, in 1953, some 22% of all
> >> military were stationed in foreign countries and a substantial
> >> percentage of that 22% was not stationed in a battle zone.
> >
> >My Dad served in the Army in the mid 1950s. After the Korean war. Before the Vietnam war. The sweet spot one might say for those forced to enlist in the military. An uncle also served about this same time. My Dad was officially outside the United States of America. He was at a base in Anchorage. In the Alaskan Territory. He would not have fit into your 22% in foreign countries comment. But he would be in the 22% not in a battle zone.
> I think at the time Alaska was referred to as outside the Continental
> U.S." at I remember CONUS or OCONUS as being a defining term although
> I never knew anyone stationed in Alaska but I'm pretty sure it was
> applied to people stationed in Hawaii.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

I did write "officially outside the United STATES of America". Alaska and Hawaii did not become states in the United States of America until after he left the Alaskan Territory. So he was officially outside the United States but was not overseas. Similar to Japan attacking Hawaii in WW2. Technically, officially, they did NOT attack the United STATES of America. They attacked a US military base on a US territory. Hawaii was not a state during WW2.

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:32:47 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:15:39 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
> >> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:21:27 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> >> >> On 2/21/2022 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
> >> >> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
> >> >> >> > number is less then 1%.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
> >> >> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
> >> >> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
> >> >> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
> >> >> >> > better to play solder???
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
> >> >> >> > play solder...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Or pretend they are as tough as a soldier. Or that they could have been
> >> >> >> really effective as a soldier. Or that they can still react as well as a
> >> >> >> trained soldier if "other people" suddenly mount an attack on their
> >> >> >> little suburban castle.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's funny that my family members and close friends who actually
> >> >> >> enlisted or were drafted, and _especially_ the ones who actually saw
> >> >> >> combat, have absolutely no interest in combat-style rifles, even if they
> >> >> >> do shoot targets and hunt.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> --
> >> >> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >> >> >
> >> >> >My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
> >> military. But there are many families, particularly in the south, who
> >> have a long lineage of fathers, grandfathers, sons, great grandfathers
> >> serving in the military. So.......
> >> >> >
> >> >> From my own experiences there is a lot of difference between both the
> >> >> branch of service and your job in the service. An Infantryman crawling
> >> >> through the mud and a Navy Chief Petty Officer managing, say the
> >> >> engine room on a ship.
> >> >>
> >> >> I enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted, After about 1 year
> >> >> the Air force sent me to Japan to work on Bombers at the tail end of
> >> >> the Korean War. I liked it so well I stayed 8 years. I came back and a
> >> >> few years later they shipped me off to Vietnam and I liked it and
> >> >> would have staid longer if they had let me, I came back and a year or
> >> >> so later they shipped me off to Thailand, and I liked that too and
> >> >> stayed a while. More then half of my 20 years I spent overseas and
> >> >> liked every bit of it. And all the while there are guys bitching and
> >> >> complaining about being "Here". Wherever "here" happened to be.
> >> >> >I do not know and don't know of any studies where they looked at combat veterans who saw actual combat service and whether their children served later. That would be a revealing study I think.
> >> >> Well there are certainly examples of officers who are second or more
> >> >> generation servicemen. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of a
> >> >> serving Army Captain and two of his mother's brothers fought for the
> >> >> South in the Civil war.
> >> >>
> >> >> --
> >> >> Cheers,
> >> >>
> >> >> John B.
> >> >
> >> >I think you missed my main point. I was referring to infantry men. Men who saw combat up front. Who were on the administering and receiving end of death, gunfire. Whether the progeny of those men had a favorable opinion of military service. I am not referring to officers in command. Officer and infantry shooting and being shot at in the mud are not exactly comparable..
> >> Well, perhaps I did, I was relying specifically to your statement
> >> that, "My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
> >> military".
> >> I did a quick check and it seems that, in 1953, some 22% of all
> >> military were stationed in foreign countries and a substantial
> >> percentage of that 22% was not stationed in a battle zone.
> >
> >My Dad served in the Army in the mid 1950s. After the Korean war. Before the Vietnam war. The sweet spot one might say for those forced to enlist in the military. An uncle also served about this same time. My Dad was officially outside the United States of America. He was at a base in Anchorage. In the Alaskan Territory. He would not have fit into your 22% in foreign countries comment. But he would be in the 22% not in a battle zone.
> I think at the time Alaska was referred to as outside the Continental
> U.S." at I remember CONUS or OCONUS as being a defining term although
> I never knew anyone stationed in Alaska but I'm pretty sure it was
> applied to people stationed in Hawaii.
> --
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

I'd say NO. Alaska is part of the North American Continent. So Alaska is part of the Continental US. But NOT part of the Contiguous US. Hawaii I think is outside the North American Continent. Here in the US we say Contiguous states or lower 48 when we want to exclude Alaska and Hawaii since they are oddballs. Kind of like France has an official state in South America.. Not a territory, but an official state, division, county, region (France calls them regions). France also has a few island Regions like we have Hawaii. But France's island states are a few hundred miles from continental France. Not a few thousand miles from continental USA like Hawaii.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>>>> least as I
>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>>>> stricken by
>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>>>
>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>>>
>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>>>
>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
>>> something similar.
>>>
>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
>>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
>>> similar death of a child even more so.
>>>
>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
>>> allowed to happen.
>>>
>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
>>> criminal prosecution.
>>>
>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>>>
>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
>>> the weapon used.
>>>
>>
>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy based
>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>>
>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
>
>A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to mock
>a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
>outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>
>I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
>call for free use and possession of bombs?

You are slipping right down into the throes of silly ness.

Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as today, in the
U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun control laws are
finding more and more being smuggled into the state. So it is a truism
that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.

You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I get 15,600,000
"hits".
https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:41:19 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:32:47 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:15:39 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:21:27 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 2/21/2022 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
>> >> >> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
>> >> >> >> > number is less then 1%.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
>> >> >> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
>> >> >> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
>> >> >> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
>> >> >> >> > better to play solder???
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
>> >> >> >> > play solder...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Or pretend they are as tough as a soldier. Or that they could have been
>> >> >> >> really effective as a soldier. Or that they can still react as well as a
>> >> >> >> trained soldier if "other people" suddenly mount an attack on their
>> >> >> >> little suburban castle.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's funny that my family members and close friends who actually
>> >> >> >> enlisted or were drafted, and _especially_ the ones who actually saw
>> >> >> >> combat, have absolutely no interest in combat-style rifles, even if they
>> >> >> >> do shoot targets and hunt.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> - Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
>> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
>> >> military. But there are many families, particularly in the south, who
>> >> have a long lineage of fathers, grandfathers, sons, great grandfathers
>> >> serving in the military. So.......
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> From my own experiences there is a lot of difference between both the
>> >> >> branch of service and your job in the service. An Infantryman crawling
>> >> >> through the mud and a Navy Chief Petty Officer managing, say the
>> >> >> engine room on a ship.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted, After about 1 year
>> >> >> the Air force sent me to Japan to work on Bombers at the tail end of
>> >> >> the Korean War. I liked it so well I stayed 8 years. I came back and a
>> >> >> few years later they shipped me off to Vietnam and I liked it and
>> >> >> would have staid longer if they had let me, I came back and a year or
>> >> >> so later they shipped me off to Thailand, and I liked that too and
>> >> >> stayed a while. More then half of my 20 years I spent overseas and
>> >> >> liked every bit of it. And all the while there are guys bitching and
>> >> >> complaining about being "Here". Wherever "here" happened to be.
>> >> >> >I do not know and don't know of any studies where they looked at combat veterans who saw actual combat service and whether their children served later. That would be a revealing study I think.
>> >> >> Well there are certainly examples of officers who are second or more
>> >> >> generation servicemen. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of a
>> >> >> serving Army Captain and two of his mother's brothers fought for the
>> >> >> South in the Civil war.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John B.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you missed my main point. I was referring to infantry men. Men who saw combat up front. Who were on the administering and receiving end of death, gunfire. Whether the progeny of those men had a favorable opinion of military service. I am not referring to officers in command. Officer and infantry shooting and being shot at in the mud are not exactly comparable.
>> >> Well, perhaps I did, I was relying specifically to your statement
>> >> that, "My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
>> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
>> >> military".
>> >> I did a quick check and it seems that, in 1953, some 22% of all
>> >> military were stationed in foreign countries and a substantial
>> >> percentage of that 22% was not stationed in a battle zone.
>> >
>> >My Dad served in the Army in the mid 1950s. After the Korean war. Before the Vietnam war. The sweet spot one might say for those forced to enlist in the military. An uncle also served about this same time. My Dad was officially outside the United States of America. He was at a base in Anchorage. In the Alaskan Territory. He would not have fit into your 22% in foreign countries comment. But he would be in the 22% not in a battle zone.
>> I think at the time Alaska was referred to as outside the Continental
>> U.S." at I remember CONUS or OCONUS as being a defining term although
>> I never knew anyone stationed in Alaska but I'm pretty sure it was
>> applied to people stationed in Hawaii.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I did write "officially outside the United STATES of America". Alaska and Hawaii did not become states in the United States of America until after he left the Alaskan Territory. So he was officially outside the United States but was not overseas. Similar to Japan attacking Hawaii in WW2. Technically, officially, they did NOT attack the United STATES of America. They attacked a US military base on a US territory. Hawaii was not a state during WW2.

I wasn't arguing I just wasn't sure what serving in Alaska qualified
as? Overseas? Not Overseas? Whatever?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:51:17 -0800 (PST), "russellseaton1@yahoo.com"
<ritzannaseaton@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 12:14:13 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 21:32:47 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 8:09:07 PM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 22 Feb 2022 13:04:06 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 5:15:39 AM UTC-6, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> On Mon, 21 Feb 2022 18:21:27 -0800 (PST), "russell...@yahoo.com"
>> >> >> <ritzann...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 7:26:54 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 2/21/2022 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > But, perhaps it is some sort of desire to be a "Soldier". I read that
>> >> >> >> > 18% of U.S. adults were in, or were veterans, in 1980, while today the
>> >> >> >> > number is less then 1%.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > Perhaps, possibly, not having actually served, there is some sort of
>> >> >> >> > childish desire, in U.S. males, to "Be a Soldier". One could, of
>> >> >> >> > course, enlist and actually BE a solder but then one would likely have
>> >> >> >> > to travel to some strange and foreign land to be shot at. No! Far
>> >> >> >> > better to play solder???
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> > This, of course, is Frank's assertion, that American Males want to
>> >> >> >> > play solder...
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Or pretend they are as tough as a soldier. Or that they could have been
>> >> >> >> really effective as a soldier. Or that they can still react as well as a
>> >> >> >> trained soldier if "other people" suddenly mount an attack on their
>> >> >> >> little suburban castle.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's funny that my family members and close friends who actually
>> >> >> >> enlisted or were drafted, and _especially_ the ones who actually saw
>> >> >> >> combat, have absolutely no interest in combat-style rifles, even if they
>> >> >> >> do shoot targets and hunt.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> --
>> >> >> >> - Frank Krygowski
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
>> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
>> >> military. But there are many families, particularly in the south, who
>> >> have a long lineage of fathers, grandfathers, sons, great grandfathers
>> >> serving in the military. So.......
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> From my own experiences there is a lot of difference between both the
>> >> >> branch of service and your job in the service. An Infantryman crawling
>> >> >> through the mud and a Navy Chief Petty Officer managing, say the
>> >> >> engine room on a ship.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I enlisted in the Air Force to avoid being drafted, After about 1 year
>> >> >> the Air force sent me to Japan to work on Bombers at the tail end of
>> >> >> the Korean War. I liked it so well I stayed 8 years. I came back and a
>> >> >> few years later they shipped me off to Vietnam and I liked it and
>> >> >> would have staid longer if they had let me, I came back and a year or
>> >> >> so later they shipped me off to Thailand, and I liked that too and
>> >> >> stayed a while. More then half of my 20 years I spent overseas and
>> >> >> liked every bit of it. And all the while there are guys bitching and
>> >> >> complaining about being "Here". Wherever "here" happened to be.
>> >> >> >I do not know and don't know of any studies where they looked at combat veterans who saw actual combat service and whether their children served later. That would be a revealing study I think.
>> >> >> Well there are certainly examples of officers who are second or more
>> >> >> generation servicemen. General Douglas MacArthur was the son of a
>> >> >> serving Army Captain and two of his mother's brothers fought for the
>> >> >> South in the Civil war.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> Cheers,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> John B.
>> >> >
>> >> >I think you missed my main point. I was referring to infantry men. Men who saw combat up front. Who were on the administering and receiving end of death, gunfire. Whether the progeny of those men had a favorable opinion of military service. I am not referring to officers in command. Officer and infantry shooting and being shot at in the mud are not exactly comparable.
>> >> Well, perhaps I did, I was relying specifically to your statement
>> >> that, "My Dad served in the Army during the 1950s. He always made it a
>> >> point with us sons that he did not want any of us to go to the
>> >> military".
>> >> I did a quick check and it seems that, in 1953, some 22% of all
>> >> military were stationed in foreign countries and a substantial
>> >> percentage of that 22% was not stationed in a battle zone.
>> >
>> >My Dad served in the Army in the mid 1950s. After the Korean war. Before the Vietnam war. The sweet spot one might say for those forced to enlist in the military. An uncle also served about this same time. My Dad was officially outside the United States of America. He was at a base in Anchorage. In the Alaskan Territory. He would not have fit into your 22% in foreign countries comment. But he would be in the 22% not in a battle zone.
>> I think at the time Alaska was referred to as outside the Continental
>> U.S." at I remember CONUS or OCONUS as being a defining term although
>> I never knew anyone stationed in Alaska but I'm pretty sure it was
>> applied to people stationed in Hawaii.
>> --
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>
>I'd say NO. Alaska is part of the North American Continent. So Alaska is part of the Continental US. But NOT part of the Contiguous US. Hawaii I think is outside the North American Continent. Here in the US we say Contiguous states or lower 48 when we want to exclude Alaska and Hawaii since they are oddballs. Kind of like France has an official state in South America. Not a territory, but an official state, division, county, region (France calls them regions). France also has a few island Regions like we have Hawaii. But France's island states are a few hundred miles from continental France. Not a few thousand miles from continental USA like Hawaii.

Frankly I don't know. The term "continental limits of the United
States" was pretty commonly used in Military, or at least USAF
correspondence, but as I never served in either Alaska or Hawaii I
don't know, The revealing fact would be whether those serving in
Alaska received any sort of "overseas pay".

I just did a search and find that:
Alaska and Hawaii are OCONUS (Outside the Contiguous United States),
and qualify for special allowances within the military, but are not
considered overseas for tax purposes.
https://ttlc.intuit.com/community/military/discussion/is-alaska-considered-overseas-for-military-personnel/00/595484
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/23/2022 6:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>>>>> least as I
>>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>>>>> stricken by
>>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>>>>
>>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
>>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>>>>
>>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
>>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>>>>
>>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
>>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
>>>> something similar.
>>>>
>>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
>>>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
>>>> similar death of a child even more so.
>>>>
>>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
>>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
>>>> allowed to happen.
>>>>
>>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
>>>> criminal prosecution.
>>>>
>>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>>>>
>>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
>>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
>>>> the weapon used.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy based
>>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>>>
>>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
>>
>> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to mock
>> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
>> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>>
>> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
>> call for free use and possession of bombs?
>
> You are slipping right down into the throes of silly ness.
>
> Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as today, in the
> U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun control laws are
> finding more and more being smuggled into the state. So it is a truism
> that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.
>
> You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I get 15,600,000
> "hits".
> https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
>

+1

Out here in the actual world it's the same market phenomenon
as dope. Prohibition or hyper regulatory tax schemes
guarantee a higher profit to contraband.

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

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 6:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> >>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
> >>>>> least as I
> >>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
> >>>>> stricken by
> >>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
> >>>>
> >>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
> >>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
> >>>>
> >>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
> >>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
> >>>>
> >>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
> >>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
> >>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
> >>>> something similar.
> >>>>
> >>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
> >>>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
> >>>> similar death of a child even more so.
> >>>>
> >>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
> >>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
> >>>> allowed to happen.
> >>>>
> >>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
> >>>> criminal prosecution.
> >>>>
> >>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
> >>>>
> >>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
> >>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
> >>>> the weapon used.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy based
> >>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
> >>>
> >>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
> >>
> >> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to mock
> >> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
> >> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
> >>
> >> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
> >> call for free use and possession of bombs?
> >
> > You are slipping right down into the throes of silly ness.
> >
> > Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as today, in the
> > U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun control laws are
> > finding more and more being smuggled into the state. So it is a truism
> > that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.
> >
> > You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I get 15,600,000
> > "hits".
> > https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
> >
> +1
>
> Out here in the actual world it's the same market phenomenon
> as dope. Prohibition or hyper regulatory tax schemes
> guarantee a higher profit to contraband.

OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw all laws. Got it!

(Since this is Usenet, I may have to say that was sarcasm.)

- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:49:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> > <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> >>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> >>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>> >>>>> least as I
>> >>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>> >>>>> stricken by
>> >>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
>> >>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
>> >>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
>> >>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>> >>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
>> >>>> something similar.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
>> >>>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
>> >>>> similar death of a child even more so.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
>> >>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
>> >>>> allowed to happen.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
>> >>>> criminal prosecution.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
>> >>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
>> >>>> the weapon used.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy based
>> >>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>> >>>
>> >>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
>> >>
>> >> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to mock
>> >> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
>> >> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>> >>
>> >> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
>> >> call for free use and possession of bombs?
>> >
>> > You are slipping right down into the throes of silly ness.
>> >
>> > Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as today, in the
>> > U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun control laws are
>> > finding more and more being smuggled into the state. So it is a truism
>> > that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.
>> >
>> > You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I get 15,600,000
>> > "hits".
>> > https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
>> >
>> +1
>>
>> Out here in the actual world it's the same market phenomenon
>> as dope. Prohibition or hyper regulatory tax schemes
>> guarantee a higher profit to contraband.
>
>OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw all laws. Got it!
>
>(Since this is Usenet, I may have to say that was sarcasm.)
>
>- Frank Krygowski

Nope, nobody is telling you that laws work or laws do not work. What
they are telling you is what is actually happening.

Yes gun smuggling does exist. It is estimated that something like 2000
guns a day are smuggled into Mexico, and yes drugs are sold in the
U.S., in fact the U.S. drug market is said to be as large as 150
billion.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190820081846.htm
Spending on illicit drugs in US nears $150 billion annually.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/23/2022 10:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 6:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>>>>>>> least as I
>>>>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>>>>>>> stricken by
>>>>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
>>>>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
>>>>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
>>>>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>>>>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
>>>>>> something similar.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
>>>>>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
>>>>>> similar death of a child even more so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
>>>>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
>>>>>> allowed to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
>>>>>> criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
>>>>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
>>>>>> the weapon used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy based
>>>>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
>>>>
>>>> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to mock
>>>> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
>>>> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
>>>> call for free use and possession of bombs?
>>>
>>> You are slipping right down into the throes of silly ness.
>>>
>>> Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as today, in the
>>> U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun control laws are
>>> finding more and more being smuggled into the state. So it is a truism
>>> that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.
>>>
>>> You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I get 15,600,000
>>> "hits".
>>> https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
>>>
>> +1
>>
>> Out here in the actual world it's the same market phenomenon
>> as dope. Prohibition or hyper regulatory tax schemes
>> guarantee a higher profit to contraband.
>
> OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw all laws. Got it!
>
> (Since this is Usenet, I may have to say that was sarcasm.)
>
> - Frank Krygowski
>

Suggestions welcome.

Take Mexico for example. Their long-standing system requires
a written application to own a firearm stating 'good cause'
and listing thrid party character references. (as in NY
general defense is not good cause)

Applicant is researched for good character, criminal record,
mental illness history etc by the Defense Department. Once
permitted, the sole retail outlet is the government firearms
outlet inside a major military base near the Capital. That's
it. One retail outlet for firearms in the entire country and
it's run by the Army.

Private sale or transfer of firearms is prohibited.
Permitted ammunition is limited to 200 rounds .22 rimfire or
200 rounds centerfire of .38 or smaller only. Nothing larger
permitted.

How's that for strict regulation? Anything they left out?

How's it going down there?

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

On 2/24/2022 11:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/23/2022 10:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/23/2022 6:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>>>>>>>> least as I
>>>>>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>>>>>>>> stricken by
>>>>>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
>>>>>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
>>>>>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
>>>>>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>>>>>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
>>>>>>> something similar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
>>>>>>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
>>>>>>> similar death of a child even more so.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
>>>>>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
>>>>>>> allowed to happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
>>>>>>> criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
>>>>>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
>>>>>>> the weapon used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy
>>>>>> based
>>>>>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to
>>>>> mock
>>>>> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
>>>>> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
>>>>> call for free use and possession of bombs?
>>>>
>>>> You are slipping right down into the throes of silly ness.
>>>>
>>>> Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as today, in the
>>>> U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun control laws are
>>>> finding more and more being smuggled into the state. So it is a truism
>>>> that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.
>>>>
>>>> You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I get 15,600,000
>>>> "hits".
>>>> https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
>>>>
>>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> Out here in the actual world it's the same market phenomenon
>>> as dope. Prohibition or hyper regulatory tax schemes
>>> guarantee a higher profit to contraband.
>>
>> OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw
>> all laws. Got it!
>>
>> (Since this is Usenet, I may have to say that was sarcasm.)
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>>
>
> Suggestions welcome.

OK:

Canadian laws.

British laws.

French laws.

Heck, Swiss laws. Lots of guns, but in "well regulated militias." And
far, far less gun crime than the U.S.

Very few developed nations emulate the U.S.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/24/2022 11:19 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/23/2022 10:49 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 5:49:51 PM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>>>> On 2/23/2022 6:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 12:27:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 9:16 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 7:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2/22/2022 8:31 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, of course I was ridiculing Franks assertion, at
>>>>>>>>> least as I
>>>>>>>>> understood him, that somehow one would be more, or less,
>>>>>>>>> stricken by
>>>>>>>>> grief depending on the cause of death.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're being totally unrealistic, in a foolish attempt to
>>>>>>>> pursue a nonsense argument.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither individuals nor society treat all deaths as equal,
>>>>>>>> nor have identical feelings about all deaths.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The death of an elderly person who has lived a full life is
>>>>>>>> one thing. Perhaps it is regrettable depending on
>>>>>>>> conditions, but often people remark "Well, it was time" or
>>>>>>>> something similar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The death from natural causes of a middle aged or younger
>>>>>>>> person is generally treated as a bit more regrettable. A
>>>>>>>> similar death of a child even more so.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> An accidental death of those people triggers yet more
>>>>>>>> regret, and may lead to anger at how such a thing could be
>>>>>>>> allowed to happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The murder of a person rightfully triggers outrage and
>>>>>>>> criminal prosecution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The murder of a child, even more outrage.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The killing of 20 children sitting in school is considered
>>>>>>>> truly heinous. At least, by people who are not avid fans of
>>>>>>>> the weapon used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes I understand you and you're not wrong in principle but policy
>>>>>>> based
>>>>>>> on anomalies doesn't always work out well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/1927-bombing-remains-americas-deadliest-school-massacre-180963355/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A British-born engineer and colleague of mine in the 1970s used to
>>>>>> mock
>>>>>> a slogan the NRA promoted in those days. He said "And when bombs are
>>>>>> outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder if today's pretend soldiers will use the Second Amendment to
>>>>>> call for free use and possession of bombs?
>>>>>
>>>>> You are slipping right down into the throes of silly ness.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your colleague's mocking comment is pretty silly as today, in the
>>>>> U.S., several states with rather severe hand gun control laws are
>>>>> finding more and more being smuggled into the state. So it is a truism
>>>>> that when guns are outlawed only criminals will have guns.
>>>>>
>>>>> You might try a google search on "gun+smuggle". I get 15,600,000
>>>>> "hits".
>>>>> https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/gun-trafficking-ring-ohio-camden-new-jersey-weapons-arrests/205248/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> Out here in the actual world it's the same market phenomenon
>>>> as dope. Prohibition or hyper regulatory tax schemes
>>>> guarantee a higher profit to contraband.
>>>
>>> OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw
>>> all laws. Got it!
>>>
>>> (Since this is Usenet, I may have to say that was sarcasm.)
>>>
>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>
>>
>> Suggestions welcome.
>
>OK:
>
>Canadian laws.
>
>British laws.
>
>French laws.
>
>Heck, Swiss laws. Lots of guns, but in "well regulated militias." And
>far, far less gun crime than the U.S.
>
>Very few developed nations emulate the U.S.

Re Canadian laws...

I did a bit of research and Canada has a far lower incident of violent
crime, i.e. law breaking, then the U.S.

Do you suppose that this is a matter of better laws or is it a matter
of a more law abiding people?
And, I suspect the same applies to The British, and the Swiss.
--
Cheers,

John B.