On 2/26/2022 6:07 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 5:59 PM, John B. wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>> Oh, you mean what you've described as stringent gun laws
>> reduce rape?
>> Or limit the number of criminals in the society, as
>> indicated by the
>> numbers in prison?
>
> I notice you're not giving an explanation for the
> differences, John. Not even a guess.
>

I noted that of our two large neighbors, Mexico's firearms
protocols are significantly more restrictive than Canada's.
And yet...

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