On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>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.
>
Nice try (:-) But No, I didn't introduce the topic of Rape, per se. I
introduced the fact that Canada has far less serious crime then the
U.S.

Unless, of course you don't consider Rape a serious crime.

>> 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.

Well... stop acting like Tom (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.