On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 8:39:08 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> On 2/26/2022 4:08 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > 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
> >>>>>> <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
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 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?
> >
> I don't know and simple answers will not be found.
>
> Many serious people have interesting analyses. Thomas Sowell
> for example has written extensively on the link between
> Scots-Irish lower class immigration to the central and
> southern States (after New England was settled) and the
> follow on effects of their culture on the nearby black
> population in terms of cultural attitudes and behaviors.
>
> And lest my comments be misunderstood, when Mr Kunich notes
> (correctly if perhaps not well composed) that black men are
> 7% of USA but 50% of homicide victims and of murderers where
> race is known, this has no meaning for the greater bulk of
> normal black Americans with whom we live, work and date. As
> with white or Hondurans any group, a very small number of
> feral criminals account for most crime and as criminology
> understood in the early 1990s removing a few dozen guys from
> a neighborhood will and has dramatically reduced crime. New
> York is the classic case but not different from other
> experiences except in volume.
>
> Back to your prior comment, the elected officials linked
> above each ran specifically on _not_ jailing criminals. And
> were elected. Enough voters embraced a vision of societal
> collapse to vote them in or, as I noted, laws and policies
> follow culture.
>
> I'm more than concerned, I'm upset. In the local instance I
> sold my house and moved my business out of a county which
> has fallen apart by treating career criminals as lost
> wayward souls if not an endangered species requiring
> coddling on the public dime at great expense. The results
> are not pretty but hey I'm a minority now.

I read in someone's posting that Frank was accusing me of bringing up rape. I went through all of my postings and found no such thing. But here Frank is bringing rape up.