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

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

Lets just say that I'm holding you personally responsible for causing
me to spend one day a month in bed for thirty years, when a tablespoon
of paregoric would have kept the pain away for two months.

But of course it's all worth it because it tortures those evil, evil,
addicts and forces them to associate with criminals and avoid any form
of medical help for their condition.

--
Joy Beeson
joy beeson at centurylink dot net
http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/

This is the sort of post I should cool overnight and then not send,
but what the heck -- this thread was hopelessly wrecked long before it
started, so there's nothing I can damage.

John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

While the US Constitution talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness”, the original Canadian Constitution mentioned “peace, order and
good government”.

One is decidedly every man for himself, while the other is much more
focused on the country as an interdependent community, and I think those
two phrases have defined both countries.

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 04:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
<ralph@invalid.com> wrote:

>John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
>While the US Constitution talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of
>happiness”, the original Canadian Constitution mentioned “peace, order and
>good government”.
>
>One is decidedly every man for himself, while the other is much more
>focused on the country as an interdependent community, and I think those
>two phrases have defined both countries.

Errr... Not exactly. the life, limb, etc. quote is from the
Declaration of Independence (1776), which says in part,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
Happiness.

The Constitution itself provides guarantees, for, basically:
Freedom of speech
Freedom of the press
Freedom of religion
Freedom of assembly
Right to petition the government

There are other rights such as right to own firearms, right to a
speedy trial, etc., but for comparison to Canada the above are
probably the critical ones.

The Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which
includes the Constitution Act, 1982), Section 2 provides for,
Under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms" the section states:

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/24/2022 9:23 PM, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:49:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw all laws. Got it!
>
> Lets just say that I'm holding you personally responsible for causing
> me to spend one day a month in bed for thirty years, when a tablespoon
> of paregoric would have kept the pain away for two months.
>
>
> But of course it's all worth it because it tortures those evil, evil,
> addicts and forces them to associate with criminals and avoid any form
> of medical help for their condition.
>
+1
Well studied by Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather)in the
mid-1700s

https://www.erasmusdarwin.org/news/in-the-herb-garden-this-week-opium-poppy-papaver-somniferum/

Especially for our age group which he noticed were more
mobile and active with a few grains per day.

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

On 2/25/2022 12:27 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 04:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> <ralph@invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> While the US Constitution talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of
>> happiness”, the original Canadian Constitution mentioned “peace, order and
>> good government”.
>>
>> One is decidedly every man for himself, while the other is much more
>> focused on the country as an interdependent community, and I think those
>> two phrases have defined both countries.
>
>
> Errr... Not exactly. the life, limb, etc. quote is from the
> Declaration of Independence (1776), which says in part,
>
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> Happiness.
>
> The Constitution itself provides guarantees, for, basically:
> Freedom of speech
> Freedom of the press
> Freedom of religion
> Freedom of assembly
> Right to petition the government
>
> There are other rights such as right to own firearms, right to a
> speedy trial, etc., but for comparison to Canada the above are
> probably the critical ones.
>
> The Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which
> includes the Constitution Act, 1982), Section 2 provides for,
> Under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms" the section states:
>
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
> freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
> (d) freedom of association.
>

On 2/25/2022 12:41 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 13:27:39 +0700, John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Errr... Not exactly. the life, limb, etc. quote is from the
>> Declaration of Independence (1776), which says in part,
>>
>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
>> Happiness.
>
> The original John Locke version was "life, liberty and property".
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_Liberty_and_the_pursuit_of_Happiness>
>
> Note the 5th and 14th amendments to the US constitution use the phrase
> "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process
> of law".
> <https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992>
>

If I have a natural right to life, to liberty and tt the
stored value of my labor (property) as secured in our
Constitution, then I have a natural right to protect and
defend same.

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

On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 7:23:36 PM UTC-8, Joy Beeson wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:49:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw all laws. Got it!
> Lets just say that I'm holding you personally responsible for causing
> me to spend one day a month in bed for thirty years, when a tablespoon
> of paregoric would have kept the pain away for two months.
>
>
> But of course it's all worth it because it tortures those evil, evil,
> addicts and forces them to associate with criminals and avoid any form
> of medical help for their condition.
>
> --
> Joy Beeson
> joy beeson at centurylink dot net
> http://wlweather.net/PAGEJOY/
>
> This is the sort of post I should cool overnight and then not send,
> but what the heck -- this thread was hopelessly wrecked long before it
> started, so there's nothing I can damage.

Joy, if you believe that you could maintain a single dose once a month of opium would cure your ills, you are acting pretty silly in my opinion. Before they started cracking down on doctors for prescribing Oxycodone, my doctor prescribed it for a lot of pain I was having for a zero speed fall in my driveway. After FOUR pills of the lightest dose possible to have any effect, I detected a strong desire for more. I am one of the rather few people that can stop things before they get out of hand so I immediately stopped taking that medication and threw it away. Not many others are of the same mind.. Never underestimate the power of an opium high. It is so appealing that addicts take themselves right up to the limits of losing their lives. The vast numbers of deaths from it is proof that they too often overestimate their ability to withstand the effects.

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5:39:26 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/25/2022 12:27 AM, John B. wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 04:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> > <ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>> <frkr...@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.
> >>
> >> While the US Constitution talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of
> >> happiness”, the original Canadian Constitution mentioned “peace, order and
> >> good government”.
> >>
> >> One is decidedly every man for himself, while the other is much more
> >> focused on the country as an interdependent community, and I think those
> >> two phrases have defined both countries.
> >
> >
> > Errr... Not exactly. the life, limb, etc. quote is from the
> > Declaration of Independence (1776), which says in part,
> >
> > We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> > equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> > Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> > Happiness.
> >
> > The Constitution itself provides guarantees, for, basically:
> > Freedom of speech
> > Freedom of the press
> > Freedom of religion
> > Freedom of assembly
> > Right to petition the government
> >
> > There are other rights such as right to own firearms, right to a
> > speedy trial, etc., but for comparison to Canada the above are
> > probably the critical ones.
> >
> > The Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which
> > includes the Constitution Act, 1982), Section 2 provides for,
> > Under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms" the section states:
> >
> > 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> > (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
> > (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
> > freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> > (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
> > (d) freedom of association.
> >
> Bah, 1982. pffft.
> Not now:
>
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/02/14/full-text-of-chrystia-freelands-remarks-during-emergencies-act-announcement.html

On 2/25/2022 9:41 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5:39:26 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/25/2022 12:27 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 04:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
>>> <ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkr...@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.
>>>>
>>>> While the US Constitution talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of
>>>> happiness”, the original Canadian Constitution mentioned “peace, order and
>>>> good government”.
>>>>
>>>> One is decidedly every man for himself, while the other is much more
>>>> focused on the country as an interdependent community, and I think those
>>>> two phrases have defined both countries.
>>>
>>>
>>> Errr... Not exactly. the life, limb, etc. quote is from the
>>> Declaration of Independence (1776), which says in part,
>>>
>>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
>>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
>>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
>>> Happiness.
>>>
>>> The Constitution itself provides guarantees, for, basically:
>>> Freedom of speech
>>> Freedom of the press
>>> Freedom of religion
>>> Freedom of assembly
>>> Right to petition the government
>>>
>>> There are other rights such as right to own firearms, right to a
>>> speedy trial, etc., but for comparison to Canada the above are
>>> probably the critical ones.
>>>
>>> The Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which
>>> includes the Constitution Act, 1982), Section 2 provides for,
>>> Under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms" the section states:
>>>
>>> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
>>> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
>>> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
>>> freedom of the press and other media of communication;
>>> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
>>> (d) freedom of association.
>>>
>> Bah, 1982. pffft.
>> Not now:
>>
>> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/02/14/full-text-of-chrystia-freelands-remarks-during-emergencies-act-announcement.html
>
> That was a criminal act by Trudeau and Freelands and both should be tried for it.
>
by whom?

On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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.

Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national policies! The people
in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than those in (say)
Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes and behaviors are
all very, very different. And the people south of that border can never,
ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.

I'm learning so much here!

(Again, please note the sarcasm.)

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 8:15:14 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/25/2022 9:41 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 5:39:26 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> >> On 2/25/2022 12:27 AM, John B. wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 04:16:03 -0000 (UTC), Ralph Barone
> >>> <ra...@invalid.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>>> <frkr...@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.
> >>>>
> >>>> While the US Constitution talks about “life, liberty and the pursuit of
> >>>> happiness†, the original Canadian Constitution mentioned “peace, order and
> >>>> good government†.
> >>>>
> >>>> One is decidedly every man for himself, while the other is much more
> >>>> focused on the country as an interdependent community, and I think those
> >>>> two phrases have defined both countries.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Errr... Not exactly. the life, limb, etc. quote is from the
> >>> Declaration of Independence (1776), which says in part,
> >>>
> >>> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
> >>> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> >>> Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of
> >>> Happiness.
> >>>
> >>> The Constitution itself provides guarantees, for, basically:
> >>> Freedom of speech
> >>> Freedom of the press
> >>> Freedom of religion
> >>> Freedom of assembly
> >>> Right to petition the government
> >>>
> >>> There are other rights such as right to own firearms, right to a
> >>> speedy trial, etc., but for comparison to Canada the above are
> >>> probably the critical ones.
> >>>
> >>> The Canadian Constitution consists of the Canada Act 1982 (which
> >>> includes the Constitution Act, 1982), Section 2 provides for,
> >>> Under the heading of "Fundamental Freedoms" the section states:
> >>>
> >>> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> >>> (a) freedom of conscience and religion;
> >>> (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including
> >>> freedom of the press and other media of communication;
> >>> (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
> >>> (d) freedom of association.
> >>>
> >> Bah, 1982. pffft.
> >> Not now:
> >>
> >> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/02/14/full-text-of-chrystia-freelands-remarks-during-emergencies-act-announcement.html
> >
> > That was a criminal act by Trudeau and Freelands and both should be tried for it.
> >
> by whom?

On 2/25/2022 10:32 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national policies!
> The people in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species
> than those in (say) Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations,
> morals, reflexes and behaviors are all very, very different.
> And the people south of that border can never, ever be
> expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>
> I'm learning so much here!
>
> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>

Canada is a different culture than US of A:
https://news.yahoo.com/woman-beat-hammer-nyc-subway-163303361.html

That's not an isolated incident. We are a much more violent
country.

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

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 8:39:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/25/2022 10:32 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@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.
> >
> > Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national policies!
> > The people in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species
> > than those in (say) Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations,
> > morals, reflexes and behaviors are all very, very different.
> > And the people south of that border can never, ever be
> > expected to stop trying to kill one another.
> >
> > I'm learning so much here!
> >
> > (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
> >
> Canada is a different culture than US of A:
> https://news.yahoo.com/woman-beat-hammer-nyc-subway-163303361.html
>
> That's not an isolated incident. We are a much more violent
> country.

Joy Beeson <jbeeson@invalid.net.invalid> writes:

> On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:49:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw
>> all laws. Got it!
>
> Lets just say that I'm holding you personally responsible for causing
> me to spend one day a month in bed for thirty years, when a tablespoon
> of paregoric would have kept the pain away for two months.
>
>
> But of course it's all worth it because it tortures those evil, evil,
> addicts and forces them to associate with criminals and avoid any form
> of medical help for their condition.

Too late, I'm sure, but the equivalent of a teaspoon of paregoric is
available in garden and craft stores all across the US, sold for dried
arrangements. The author of this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Opium-Masses-Harvesting-Natures-Medication/dp/1932595465

spent some time in jail, almost surely for writing it, in what should
have been an obvious first amendment violation.

There are two sets of decisions at play here. The first are the choices
made by our Science based rulers, to allow or proscribe something. But
the second, not to be taken for granted, is the decision of us masses to
go along, and follow the rules, or not.

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 10:19:56 AM UTC-8, Radey Shouman wrote:
> Joy Beeson <jbe...@invalid.net.invalid> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Feb 2022 20:49:38 -0800 (PST), Frank Krygowski
> > <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> OK, you guys have convinced me! Laws never work, so we should outlaw
> >> all laws. Got it!
> >
> > Lets just say that I'm holding you personally responsible for causing
> > me to spend one day a month in bed for thirty years, when a tablespoon
> > of paregoric would have kept the pain away for two months.
> >
> >
> > But of course it's all worth it because it tortures those evil, evil,
> > addicts and forces them to associate with criminals and avoid any form
> > of medical help for their condition.
> Too late, I'm sure, but the equivalent of a teaspoon of paregoric is
> available in garden and craft stores all across the US, sold for dried
> arrangements. The author of this book:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Opium-Masses-Harvesting-Natures-Medication/dp/1932595465
>
> spent some time in jail, almost surely for writing it, in what should
> have been an obvious first amendment violation.
>
> There are two sets of decisions at play here. The first are the choices
> made by our Science based rulers, to allow or proscribe something. But
> the second, not to be taken for granted, is the decision of us masses to
> go along, and follow the rules, or not.

Radey, if you take enough opium to reduce pain you are taking enough to start addiction. I have a brother that died from effects and his son who is an opium addict who has gone through so many hospital programs I can't count. And he is presently living under and overpass and stealing from people to get his next fix. Most of the homeless people in California are homeless because they are addicts.

On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 11:10:56 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 25, 2022 at 8:39:49 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/25/2022 10:32 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > > On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> > >> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> > >> <frkr...@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.
> > >
> > > Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national policies!
> > > The people in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species
> > > than those in (say) Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations,
> > > morals, reflexes and behaviors are all very, very different.
> > > And the people south of that border can never, ever be
> > > expected to stop trying to kill one another.
> > >
> > > I'm learning so much here!
> > >
> > > (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
> > >
> > Canada is a different culture than US of A:
> > https://news.yahoo.com/woman-beat-hammer-nyc-subway-163303361.html
> >
> > That's not an isolated incident. We are a much more violent
> > country.
> For some reason we're not supposed to recognize that blacks who now comprise some 7% of the population

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>> 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.
>
>Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national policies! The people
>in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than those in (say)
>Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes and behaviors are
>all very, very different. And the people south of that border can never,
>ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>
>I'm learning so much here!
>
>(Again, please note the sarcasm.)

Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very different
picture:

Crime
Offences / 100,000 population Canada
Offences / 100,000 population U.S.

Rape
Canada 1.69
U.S. 27.31

Assault
Canada 150.81
U.S. 246.84

Incarcerated
Canada 104
U.S. 629
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national policies! The people
>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than those in (say)
>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes and behaviors are
>> all very, very different. And the people south of that border can never,
>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>>
>> I'm learning so much here!
>>
>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>
>
> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very different
> picture:
>
> Crime
> Offences / 100,000 population Canada
> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
>
> Rape
> Canada 1.69
> U.S. 27.31
>
> Assault
> Canada 150.81
> U.S. 246.84
>
> Incarcerated
> Canada 104
> U.S. 629

And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it genetics? Are
Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch etc.) are born with some
special law abiding gene that's missing in Americans?

Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws actually affect
citizens' behaviors?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 2/26/2022 9:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national
>>> policies! The people
>>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than
>>> those in (say)
>>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes
>>> and behaviors are
>>> all very, very different. And the people south of that
>>> border can never,
>>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>>>
>>> I'm learning so much here!
>>>
>>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>>
>>
>> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very
>> different
>> picture:
>>
>> Crime
>> Offences / 100,000 population Canada
>> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
>>
>> Rape
>> Canada 1.69
>> U.S. 27.31
>>
>> Assault
>> Canada 150.81
>> U.S. 246.84
>>
>> Incarcerated
>> Canada 104
>> U.S. 629
>
> And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it
> genetics? Are Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch
> etc.) are born with some special law abiding gene that's
> missing in Americans?
>
> Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws
> actually affect citizens' behaviors?
>

On 2/26/2022 12:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 9:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national
>>>> policies! The people
>>>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than
>>>> those in (say)
>>>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes
>>>> and behaviors are
>>>> all very, very different. And the people south of that
>>>> border can never,
>>>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>>>>
>>>> I'm learning so much here!
>>>>
>>>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>>>
>>>
>>> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very
>>> different
>>> picture:
>>>
>>> Crime
>>> Offences / 100,000 population  Canada
>>> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
>>>
>>>   Rape
>>> Canada 1.69
>>> U.S. 27.31
>>>
>>> Assault
>>> Canada 150.81
>>> U.S. 246.84
>>>
>>> Incarcerated
>>> Canada 104
>>> U.S. 629
>>
>> And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it
>> genetics? Are Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch
>> etc.) are born with some special law abiding gene that's
>> missing in Americans?
>>
>> Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws
>> actually affect citizens' behaviors?
>>
>
> Laws and policies are dynamic and (more or less) reflect the culture.
> Where there is significant conflict (i.e., Prohibition) the laws and/or
> policies change, not the culture.
>
> You may well argue that alcohol is an anomaly and you meant well
> understood crimes of long standing such as theft and robbery and that
> those are different. You'd be wrong.
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-yorks-no-bail-law-leaves-a-trail-of-violence/ar-BB1gmfaq
>
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/index.html
>
>
> https://www.foxla.com/news/gascon-launches-diversion-program-for-minors-who-commit-felony-burglary-vehicle-theft-robbery
>
>
> https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/meet-chesa-boudin-the-rogue-prosecutor-wreaking-havoc-san-francisco

On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 9:05:17 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 9:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
> >> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 12:02:17 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> >>>> <frkr...@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.
> >>>
> >>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national
> >>> policies! The people
> >>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than
> >>> those in (say)
> >>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes
> >>> and behaviors are
> >>> all very, very different. And the people south of that
> >>> border can never,
> >>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
> >>>
> >>> I'm learning so much here!
> >>>
> >>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
> >>
> >>
> >> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very
> >> different
> >> picture:
> >>
> >> Crime
> >> Offences / 100,000 population Canada
> >> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
> >>
> >> Rape
> >> Canada 1.69
> >> U.S. 27.31
> >>
> >> Assault
> >> Canada 150.81
> >> U.S. 246.84
> >>
> >> Incarcerated
> >> Canada 104
> >> U.S. 629
> >
> > And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it
> > genetics? Are Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch
> > etc.) are born with some special law abiding gene that's
> > missing in Americans?
> >
> > Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws
> > actually affect citizens' behaviors?
> >
> Laws and policies are dynamic and (more or less) reflect the
> culture. Where there is significant conflict (i.e.,
> Prohibition) the laws and/or policies change, not the culture.
>
> You may well argue that alcohol is an anomaly and you meant
> well understood crimes of long standing such as theft and
> robbery and that those are different. You'd be wrong.
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-yorks-no-bail-law-leaves-a-trail-of-violence/ar-BB1gmfaq
>
> https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/index.html
>
> https://www.foxla.com/news/gascon-launches-diversion-program-for-minors-who-commit-felony-burglary-vehicle-theft-robbery
>
> https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/meet-chesa-boudin-the-rogue-prosecutor-wreaking-havoc-san-francisco

On 2/26/2022 3:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 12:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/26/2022 9:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national
>>>>> policies! The people
>>>>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than
>>>>> those in (say)
>>>>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes
>>>>> and behaviors are
>>>>> all very, very different. And the people south of that
>>>>> border can never,
>>>>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm learning so much here!
>>>>>
>>>>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very
>>>> different
>>>> picture:
>>>>
>>>> Crime
>>>> Offences / 100,000 population Canada
>>>> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
>>>>
>>>> Â Rape
>>>> Canada 1.69
>>>> U.S. 27.31
>>>>
>>>> Assault
>>>> Canada 150.81
>>>> U.S. 246.84
>>>>
>>>> Incarcerated
>>>> Canada 104
>>>> U.S. 629
>>>
>>> And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it
>>> genetics? Are Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch
>>> etc.) are born with some special law abiding gene that's
>>> missing in Americans?
>>>
>>> Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws
>>> actually affect citizens' behaviors?
>>>
>>
>> Laws and policies are dynamic and (more or less) reflect
>> the culture. Where there is significant conflict (i.e.,
>> Prohibition) the laws and/or policies change, not the
>> culture.
>>
>> You may well argue that alcohol is an anomaly and you
>> meant well understood crimes of long standing such as
>> theft and robbery and that those are different. You'd be
>> wrong.
>>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-yorks-no-bail-law-leaves-a-trail-of-violence/ar-BB1gmfaq
>>
>>
>> https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/index.html
>>
>>
>> https://www.foxla.com/news/gascon-launches-diversion-program-for-minors-who-commit-felony-burglary-vehicle-theft-robbery
>>
>>
>> https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/meet-chesa-boudin-the-rogue-prosecutor-wreaking-havoc-san-francisco
>
>
> You seem to be rebutting an argument I haven't made.
>
> In any case, it seems neither you nor John had no
> explanation for the differences (nor source) he's found for
> Canadian vs. U.S. crime stats. You can't be suggesting it's
> because of the anecdotes and policy changes you cited in
> those articles. None are more than two years old, and two
> are only a few months old.
>
> Do you have an explanation for Canada's much better numbers?
> Is their justice system really more strict and punitive than
> ours?
>
> I really don't know the answer. But I very much doubt the
> better numbers are due to some inborn, genetic difference in
> the populations.
>

On 2/26/2022 4:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 3:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 2/26/2022 12:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2022 9:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national
>>>>>> policies! The people
>>>>>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than
>>>>>> those in (say)
>>>>>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes
>>>>>> and behaviors are
>>>>>> all very, very different. And the people south of that
>>>>>> border can never,
>>>>>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm learning so much here!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very
>>>>> different
>>>>> picture:
>>>>>
>>>>> Crime
>>>>> Offences / 100,000 population  Canada
>>>>> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>>   Rape
>>>>> Canada 1.69
>>>>> U.S. 27.31
>>>>>
>>>>> Assault
>>>>> Canada 150.81
>>>>> U.S. 246.84
>>>>>
>>>>> Incarcerated
>>>>> Canada 104
>>>>> U.S. 629
>>>>
>>>> And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it
>>>> genetics? Are Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch
>>>> etc.) are born with some special law abiding gene that's
>>>> missing in Americans?
>>>>
>>>> Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws
>>>> actually affect citizens' behaviors?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Laws and policies are dynamic and (more or less) reflect
>>> the culture. Where there is significant conflict (i.e.,
>>> Prohibition) the laws and/or policies change, not the
>>> culture.
>>>
>>> You may well argue that alcohol is an anomaly and you
>>> meant well understood crimes of long standing such as
>>> theft and robbery and that those are different. You'd be
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-yorks-no-bail-law-leaves-a-trail-of-violence/ar-BB1gmfaq
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/index.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.foxla.com/news/gascon-launches-diversion-program-for-minors-who-commit-felony-burglary-vehicle-theft-robbery
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/meet-chesa-boudin-the-rogue-prosecutor-wreaking-havoc-san-francisco
>>>
>>
>>
>> You seem to be rebutting an argument I haven't made.
>>
>> In any case, it seems neither you nor John had no
>> explanation for the differences (nor source) he's found for
>> Canadian vs. U.S. crime stats. You can't be suggesting it's
>> because of the anecdotes and policy changes you cited in
>> those articles. None are more than two years old, and two
>> are only a few months old.
>>
>> Do you have an explanation for Canada's much better numbers?
>> Is their justice system really more strict and punitive than
>> ours?
>>
>> I really don't know the answer. But I very much doubt the
>> better numbers are due to some inborn, genetic difference in
>> the populations.
>>
>
> Sorry if I was not more clear.
>
> I meant that rather than laws changing the culture, cultural changes are
> reflected in different (or, 2022, deficient, lacking, dysfunctional)
> policies and laws.
>
> We are a much more violent nation than Canada. This was not _caused_ by
> repealing death penalty statues nor by redefining 'felony' or what have
> you.
>
> Opening the borders in direct conflict with a host of long standing
> Federal statutes, by ukase, probably has increased violence but that's
> like peeing in the ocean.

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 10:57:52 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national policies! The people
>>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than those in (say)
>>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes and behaviors are
>>> all very, very different. And the people south of that border can never,
>>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>>>
>>> I'm learning so much here!
>>>
>>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>>
>>
>> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very different
>> picture:
>>
>> Crime
>> Offences / 100,000 population Canada
>> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
>>
>> Rape
>> Canada 1.69
>> U.S. 27.31
>>
>> Assault
>> Canada 150.81
>> U.S. 246.84
>>
>> Incarcerated
>> Canada 104
>> U.S. 629
>
>And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it genetics? Are
>Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch etc.) are born with some
>special law abiding gene that's missing in Americans?
>
>Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws actually affect
>citizens' behaviors?

On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 16:20:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 2/26/2022 12:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>> On 2/26/2022 9:57 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 2/26/2022 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 11:32:25 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/2022 6:06 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it. It has nothing to do with laws or national
>>>>> policies! The people
>>>>> in (say) Windsor, Ontario are a different species than
>>>>> those in (say)
>>>>> Detroit, Michigan. Their motivations, morals, reflexes
>>>>> and behaviors are
>>>>> all very, very different. And the people south of that
>>>>> border can never,
>>>>> ever be expected to stop trying to kill one another.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm learning so much here!
>>>>>
>>>>> (Again, please note the sarcasm.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Be as sarcastic as you will but reality shows a very
>>>> different
>>>> picture:
>>>>
>>>> Crime
>>>> Offences / 100,000 population  Canada
>>>> Offences / 100,000 population U.S.
>>>>
>>>>   Rape
>>>> Canada 1.69
>>>> U.S. 27.31
>>>>
>>>> Assault
>>>> Canada 150.81
>>>> U.S. 246.84
>>>>
>>>> Incarcerated
>>>> Canada 104
>>>> U.S. 629
>>>
>>> And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it
>>> genetics? Are Canadians (like Brits, Irish, French, Dutch
>>> etc.) are born with some special law abiding gene that's
>>> missing in Americans?
>>>
>>> Or is there a chance that a nation's policies and laws
>>> actually affect citizens' behaviors?
>>>
>>
>> Laws and policies are dynamic and (more or less) reflect the culture.
>> Where there is significant conflict (i.e., Prohibition) the laws and/or
>> policies change, not the culture.
>>
>> You may well argue that alcohol is an anomaly and you meant well
>> understood crimes of long standing such as theft and robbery and that
>> those are different. You'd be wrong.
>>
>> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/new-yorks-no-bail-law-leaves-a-trail-of-violence/ar-BB1gmfaq
>>
>>
>> https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/06/us/alvin-bragg-manhattan-district-attorney-crimes-prosecution/index.html
>>
>>
>> https://www.foxla.com/news/gascon-launches-diversion-program-for-minors-who-commit-felony-burglary-vehicle-theft-robbery
>>
>>
>> https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/meet-chesa-boudin-the-rogue-prosecutor-wreaking-havoc-san-francisco
>
>You seem to be rebutting an argument I haven't made.
>
>In any case, it seems neither you nor John had no explanation for the
>differences (nor source) he's found for Canadian vs. U.S. crime stats.
>You can't be suggesting it's because of the anecdotes and policy changes
>you cited in those articles. None are more than two years old, and two
>are only a few months old.
>
>Do you have an explanation for Canada's much better numbers? Is their
>justice system really more strict and punitive than ours?
>
>I really don't know the answer. But I very much doubt the better numbers
>are due to some inborn, genetic difference in the populations.