On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:47:10 AM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 9:17:29 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote:
> > On 2/27/2022 2:28 AM, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 26, 2022 at 3:32:24 PM UTC-6, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >> 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
> > >> You need only look at the massive increase in the most violent crimes under the Democrats to see that they have played directly into the hands of the criminals.
> > >
> > > https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/27/what-we-know-about-the-increase-in-u-s-murders-in-2020/ft_21-010-19_murderrate_3a/
> > > Shows murders from about 1968 to 2020. Up with Nixon, down a bit with Ford, then up with Carter, then down and up with Reagan and Bush1, then down down down with Clinton, Bush2, Obama first term, then up Obama second term and UP UP UP at the end of Trump term. Trump had the HIGHEST increase in history for murders during his final year.
> > >
> > Yes that's true but you miss the state/local differences
> > which are critical because Federal murder prosecution is
> > extremely rare:
> > https://qz.com/162289/217-years-of-homicide-in-new-york/
> >
> >
> > Typically (shows local differences)
> >
> > https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/09/08/us/us-murder-rates-1473385452240/us-murder-rates-1473385452240-videoSixteenByNine3000.png?year=2016&h=1687&w=3000&sig=0xa5fc7ca9d975cc8f21d29a25deecab99&tw=1
> >
> > Can't find comparative charts through 2021, a year in which
> > many cities gave up on law enforcement (or actively promoted
> > arson riot and looting) but here's a resource through 2019:
> >
> > https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/nycrime.htm
> Do you really believe those statistics? They are plainly being manipulated by using numbers per 100,000 rather than actual numbers. Exactly how much are they rounding off and in which direction? It is all BS if you ask me.

I guess Tommy was responding to Andy's post instead of mine. But my post also had deaths in the USA using per 100,000. So I'll answer Tommy boy.

My webpage from above.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/10/27/what-we-know-about-the-increase-in-u-s-murders-in-2020/ft_21-010-19_murderrate_3a/

Shows deaths at 7.8 per 100k in 2020. Up from 6 in 2019. 5.9 in 2018. 6.2 in 2017. 6.2 in 2016. 5 in 2015. That is my best guess from looking at the chart.

Tommy boy's problem is rounding. 7.8 deaths per 100,000 in 2020. Population of 331,449,281. According to Wikipedia. I tried to find the 2020 Census on the government's webpage. Could not do it. Worthless government webpages. 331,449,281 / 100,000 = 3314.49281. You can round down to 7.8 if you are up to 7.849. And round up to 7.8 if you are down to 7.75. So the 7.8 deaths per 100,000 could vary between 25,687.32 dead people on the low side and 26,015.45 dead people on the high side. 7.8 dead per 100,000 equals 25,853.04 dead people. So Tommy is worried about a plus of 162.41 deaths. And a minus of 165.72 deaths. The 162.41 and 165.72 is about 0.5 per day, plus or minus a few hundreths of a person. So for Tommy a rounding error of plus or minus 0.5 deaths per day is crucial. Enough to throw away all the results. I don't know. Half a person death each day in a population of 331 MILLION doesn't seem too big of a deal to me. As long as me personally is not the half person plus or minus.