Am 26.02.2022 um 22:42 schrieb AMuzi:
> 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
>>>>> <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.
>>
>
> 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.

I beg to differ here.
You might read something like
https://www.focus.de/perspektiven/14-laender-14-reporter/14-laender-14-reporter-norwegen-5-gruende-warum-norwegens-haeftlinge-nicht-rueckfaellig-werden_id_9803285.html
through Google translator: the way a country treats their prisoners
plays a significant role on how many people re-offend after leaving jail.

Obviously, this is a "virtuous circle" (or "vicious circle"), a feedback
loop:
Sucessful legal changes trigger cultural changes.
Cultural changes trigger legal changes, which trigger further cultural
changes.

You need robust, massive law enforcement (especially appropriation of
ill-gotten gains) to ensure that organized crime is less pleasant than
a lawful life.

Once life is not dominated by organized crime (and I believe that in my
time in Minnesota, life there was not dominated by organized crime), you
need to ensure that more and more communities trust that they are
respected by the legal system and by law enforcement (this step we only
partly reach in Germany for African people).

Once police is seen to be the solution rather than the problem, the
Norwegian example above becomes a possibility, with the added benefit
that the money spent on prisons drops massively with the prison population.

Rolf