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.

But again, "We are a much more violent nation than Canada" is not an
answer to my question.

Which was "And your explanation for the differences, please? Is it
genetics?"

If not that, then what?

--
- Frank Krygowski