On 3/1/2022 8:49 PM, John B. wrote:
> 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.�
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>

A democracy is an abomination (see also Hutus in re Tutsis).

We are a Constitutional Republic, the difference being
protection of minority rights from the majority and yes, I
defend Mr Krygowski's right to not own a firearm.

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