On 2/26/2022 7:53 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2022 19:16:04 -0500, Frank Krygowski
> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 2/26/2022 6:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> You are getting more Tommy like every day. You have been using Canada
>>> versus the U.S. as justification for your claims about U.S. gun laws
>>> for months and now when you are shown that Canada is a far more law
>>> abiding country then the U.S, you rather adroitly slid right off that
>>> subject and now wonder about the difference in social make up of the
>>> two countries.
>>
>> We can discuss Canadian laws, practices and culture any way you want,
>> John. Just try to follow the discussion, please, without insults.
>>
>> Personally, I think Canadian gun laws have a direct bearing on their
>> relative absence of gun violence. I feel the same about the gun laws of
>> Britain, France, Netherlands, Ireland, etc. The U.S. absolutely is an
>> outlier among any nations that are even vaguely similar regarding
>> technology, economy and average prosperity.
>>
>> Your defense of U.S. gun policy is, apparently, "Canada has less rape
>> too" with the implication apparently being that Americans are inherently
>> much worse people.
>>
>> Is that not what you're implying? If so, please tell me what you DO mean.
>>
>> And if you believe Americans are inherently worse, can you not tell me
>> what makes them that way?
>
>
> Big (:-).
> Yup, just as Tom does you are changing the subject and now your
> initial comments about gun crimes has become a study of the social
> conduct of two countries.

The person who INTRODUCED the topic of rapes says I was the one who
changed the subject?

Wow.

> As for insults? Well I stated actual facts and you then attempted to
> scoot right around the corner and change the subject and I comment on
> it.... and that's an insult?

Likening a person to "Tommy" is an insult.

--
- Frank Krygowski