On Tue, 01 Mar 2022 19:31:43 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 3/1/2022 7:18 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 3/1/2022 7:40 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 3/1/2022 6:10 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 1 Mar 2022 11:04:35 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/28/2022 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Feb 2022 11:35:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>> <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/28/2022 1:00 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 19:18:54 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>> <frkrygow@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 7:10:27 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 18:54:45 -0800 (PST), Frank
>>>>>>>>>> Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:52:57 PM UTC-8,
>>>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2022 10:41:47 -0500, Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> To prove that's not bullshit, John, please cite
>>>>>>>>>>> where someone other than you
>>>>>>>>>>> mentioned rape data in this thread. Because I must
>>>>>>>>>>> have missed that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>>> Ah Frank. A bit of a problem with languages? "per
>>>>>>>>>> se" - " a Latin
>>>>>>>>>> phrase literally meaning “by itself.â€?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps a little problem in comprehension? Or a
>>>>>>>>>> deliberate attempt to
>>>>>>>>>> mask the fact that Canada, in general, has far less
>>>>>>>>>> violent crime then
>>>>>>>>>> the U.S.?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You mean you want a break because you introduced the
>>>>>>>>> topic of rape at the
>>>>>>>>> same time you used other words?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Frank Krygowski
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I really don't care. If you want to fantasize that in
>>>>>>>> some manner
>>>>>>>> you've won the argument then go ahead. Perhaps your
>>>>>>>> ego requires
>>>>>>>> stroking. "Self Gratification"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I simply posted facts which you seem unable to
>>>>>>>> accept. If you can't
>>>>>>>> accept reality then just carry on with your own
>>>>>>>> dementia. After all
>>>>>>>> that's what Tom does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your descent into insults shows the weakness of your
>>>>>>> arguments.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try getting back on track. You brought up that the
>>>>>>> U.S. is worse than
>>>>>>> Canada regarding rape and some other crimes. You've
>>>>>>> never posited a
>>>>>>> reason for the differences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have a reason to propose? Is it just that
>>>>>>> Americans are
>>>>>>> inherently evil in ways that Canadians are not? Why
>>>>>>> would that be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hang in there Frank and maybe you will win.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But yes, I did point out that Canada is much more law
>>>>>> abiding then the
>>>>>> U.S. in reply to your arguments that Canada has far
>>>>>> fewer gun crimes
>>>>>> then the U.S. Of course they do, that are more law
>>>>>> abiding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And now, just as Tommy does you are changing the topic
>>>>>> to argue "why
>>>>>> is Canada more law abiding the U.S."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But lets be honest Frank, you have frequently cited
>>>>>> Canada as evidence
>>>>>> that strict, or what you view as strict, gun laws will
>>>>>> reduce gun
>>>>>> crimes in the U.S. and when I provide evidence that the
>>>>>> Canadians are
>>>>>> far more law abiding then the U.S. you then go slip
>>>>>> sliding away and
>>>>>> try to change the subject to WHY the Canadians are more
>>>>>> law abiding.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So as I said in a previous post, if you want to slap
>>>>>> yourself on the
>>>>>> back and complement yourself that you have, yet again,
>>>>>> overcome the
>>>>>> opposition and won the argument, go right ahead. It
>>>>>> makes no
>>>>>> difference to me as while I post facts you twist and
>>>>>> turn and post
>>>>>> suppositions.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you explain to me _why_ you think Canadians are ...
>>>>> inherently?
>>>>> genetically? ... more civilized than Americans, you'll
>>>>> have a point.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, your explanation should also apply to Brits, Irish,
>>>>> French, Swedes
>>>>> and so many other countries that have far fewer gun
>>>>> deaths than the U.S.
>>>>> (Since you brought up the subject, I'll rely on you to
>>>>> look up their
>>>>> rates of rape and other violent crimes.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Until you come up with a better explanation, I'm going
>>>>> to assume that
>>>>> differences in gun death rates have a lot to do with
>>>>> their national
>>>>> policies, as implemented by their laws, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Briefly, my view is that national policies make a big
>>>>> difference in how
>>>>> people behave.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your view is, apparently, "Americans are just bad."
>>>>>
>>>>> Feel free to restate your view if it's different. And
>>>>> don't change the
>>>>> subject, John. This is what we are talking about _now_.
>>>>
>>>> All right, if you really are set on changing the subject,
>>>> we will
>>>> continue.
>>>>
>>>> You say "Briefly, my view is that national policies make
>>>> a big
>>>> difference in how people behave."
>>>>
>>>> Which is to say that your supposition is that ....
>>>>
>>>> Which really means what? That you have a vivid
>>>> imagination? Or that
>>>> you have conducted a multi year survey of millions of
>>>> inhabitants of
>>>> both the U.S. and Canada to determine to the nth degree
>>>> why they act
>>>> as they do?
>>>>
>>>> I suggest that your suppositions are just that, examples
>>>> of a vivid
>>>> imaginations and have nothing to do with reality.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer to deal in facts... that based on reported crime
>>>> rates the
>>>> Canadians are a far more law abiding nation then the U.S.
>>>>
>>>> No suppositions, no imagination, no "well I think". Just
>>>> facts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, I wonder if we have a natural experiment to use in
>>> comparison? Oh, maybe we do. The national 55mph speed
>>> limit was imposed on the States. Even States unwilling
>>> were coerced/bribed with the Highway Trust Fund into
>>> compliance, more or less[1].
>>>
>>> So, how's speed limit compliance going?
>>>
>>> https://www.reddit.com/r/madisonwi/comments/s88fcy/flow_of_traffic_on_the_beltline/
>>>
>>>
>>> That conversation is ubiquitous- any expressway, any
>>> Interstate. So would you maintain that a change of law
>>> effected a change in countenance?
>>
>> Speed limits absolutely make a difference. No, they are not
>> perfect - and Andrew, you really need to drop the idea that
>> imperfect results are the same as zero results.
>>
>> Some cases in point: According to Wikipedia, the German
>> Autobahn has reported average speeds of 88 mph in its
>> unrestricted zones. It has 72 mph in its 75 mph (120 kph)
>> zones.
>>
>> In the U.S., Wyoming is noted for zero, or very lax speed
>> enforcement plus high speed limits (up to 80 mph). South
>> Dakota also allows speeds up to 80, and New Mexico allows up
>> to 75mph. Which states have the fastest drivers? "#1
>> Wyoming: 21.09% of drivers exceed 70 mph. #2 South Dakota:
>> 17.07% #3 New Mexico: 16.50% ."
>>
>> And in my own nearby city: For a couple years, the twisty
>> inner city freeway long had a bad reputation for both
>> speeding and serious crashes. Then came enforcement - sort
>> of. The city began using speed cameras, and I say "sort of"
>> because no ticket could be issued until the limit was
>> exceeded by 10 mph. The result? Speeding became a far
>> smaller problem, and serious crashes dropped even more.
>>
>> Then some legislators from the "Law and Order" party stepped
>> in and wrote laws to discourage the use of speed cameras.
>> Because The Constitution has a clause stating that anyone
>> can drive any speed they want to, I guess.
>>
>> The major point? There will always be speeders and other
>> assholes. But even though they are not perfect, laws DO
>> affect people's behaviors, especially when properly enforced.
>>
>> (BTW, Germany does use speed cameras.)
>>
>
>Well, here we are, just as you wish.
>
>'Shall not be infringed' has come to mean only calibers
>smaller than .50, no full auto, permanent record of purchase
>at the Federally licensed dealer, a Federal excise tax on
>firearms and ammunition. The various States add their own
>taxes, licensing[1] and restrictions including severe
>restrictions on carry[2]. Municipalities add even more
>infringements.
>
>I will assume your use of the word 'asshole' in place of
>'driver' has some meaning in this conversation as well.
>
>[1] I can't take my ex to a pistol range near her home in IL
>without an Illinois FOID card. She doesn't own a firearm,
>but can't go into a range without the State card.
>
>[2] This is currently in litigation:
>https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/supreme-court-arguments-new-york-gun-case-signal-uphill-battle-defend-overly

I think that the best argument to Frank's assertions is that: "the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
is part of the fundamental law of the U.S.
But... it can be changed or deleted and I believe that the basic
Constitution has been amended some 27 times.

So, logically, if possession/ownership of firearms is really such a
valid point of argument why hasn't the constitution been amended to
prohibit it?

And before Frank starts waving his arms in the air and shouting, "It
should Be! It Should Be!" one might stop and give some consideration
to the fact that the U.S. is a democracy and the fundamental
philosophy behind a democracy is that the individual doesn't count.
The majority rules.
--
Cheers,

John B.