On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 12:49:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/4/2019 7:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:24:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:13:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

No. Because you stated that "no helmet equates to zero protection" which means all helmets have some protection.

O.K. I'll rephrase that. if we assume that a total lack of a helmet
equates to zero protection... :-)

Ah, but it doesn't! For years, we had a quite clever poster here (Guy
Chapman) who noted, by analogy, that his wooly cap had saved his life!

I could make the same claim. The only time I hit my head while riding
was when I was a teen. It was a fairly hard hit, and I'm sure a helmet
would have been crushed or cracked, had they existed and I had been
wearing one. So I guess it was the wooly cap that saved me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Want to have some fun? Take a couple of melons and put a wooly cap on one and a helmet on the other and then drop them from a a respectable height so that the wooly cap hits the pavement first and also the helmet hits the pavement first. I'm willing to be that t he melon with the helmet over it will suffer less damage than the melon with the wooly cap.

It's a very popular demonstration, quite useful at scaring parents and
their little kids away from ever riding bicycles. Too bad they don't do
the same thing for those much bigger sources of brain injuries - riding
in cars and walking.

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?


But! But! Frank! The government is only trying (by legislation) to
make you safe...

Perhaps a logical extenuation of the concept would be simply
outlawing those dangerous devices called bicycles.
Think of it, perhaps 800 lives, and thousands of injuries, saved every
year.

And it makes perfect sense in the USian logical system. After all,
every time there is a mass shooting the anti gun fraternity is
screaming for guns to be banned and here we have this two wheeled
device that is killing 800 perfectly good tax paying US citizens every
year.

Ban The Two Wheel Killers!
--
cheers,

John B.


Absolutely! If every scary looking firearm were to suddenly
vanish why we'd all be safe:

Well, of course. After all everybody knows that "guns kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun laws in the country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate per 100,000? What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your gun laws working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially that guns are banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally carry a pistol in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your having a shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where wildlife is a danger.

As for gun deaths it would be rather misleading to quote them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 and in the U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria you care to define murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than in Thailand.

We just had two mass murders within about half a day, one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point that "guns kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.
--
cheers,

John B.


As I often note, we're a large nation. We have one of
everything.

We are indeed a very well armed country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7ba8f4d2160

And yet today, as most days, the greater bulk of firearms
were nicely oiled and packed in their cases.

Violent events per lawfully armed citizen are extremely low
but as compared to countries without significant firearm
ownership, higher.

As with our current contraband drug discussion, Mexico has
draconian and extensive firearm regulation, a virtual
prohibition, yet their firearm murder rate is horrific.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ence-up-report

It isn't clear to me that the Vice Lords, MS-13, Crips,
Bloods or P-Stone Nation will disarm just because law
abiding citizens would.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Another problem is that the left will openly lie about "gun crimes" or "murders". 80% of all gun deaths are suicides and the left inserts those into the murders by gun column. There may be many reasons for suicide not the least of which is an ever encroaching government driving people into bankruptcy.

Speaking of bankruptcy, Tom, how is the portfolio doing today? Hope your advisors put you in long-term bond funds -- or maybe gold. Who would have thought China would retaliate? It's so complicated!

-- Jay Beattie.