On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:28:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 12:52 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:46:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 7:27 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 13:46:19 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. Slocomb writes:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:34:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/5/2019 12:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/5/2019 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 4:07 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 00:13:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 8:47 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:


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.

Yes, nobody much objects to long guns in the woods here.
But "can't
legally carry a pistol in a pocket"? Some here would say
that's akin to
slicing off a man's ... um, masculinity. (And it's true
that some men
seem to confuse their guns with their genital organs.)

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.

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

But you don't think the differences in gun laws are a
factor?

I was pointing out that the table I saw was based on UNODC
rates.

But I'm not sure whether gun laws, specifically, are
really a factor
in Thai homicide rates. Certainly the news is full of
knife, club,
whatever, (even by hand), murders and illegal ownership of
firearms is
extremely common so I'm not sure what effect the rather
strict gun
laws in Thailand have on homicide rates.

As an aside I might mention that the CDC homicide numbers
in the U.S.
seem to be all - homicides - 19,510, Firearms - 14,542 so
about 75% of
homicides in the U.S. age gun related. But!

According to the Centers for Disease Control, using data
available for
analysis on September 5, 2018, there were a reported
70,652 deaths
attributed to drug overdose in the US for the year ending
December
2017. Some deaths were still under investigation. The CDC
projects
that the total for 2017 will be 72,222.

It makes the 14,542 gun deaths seem a bit.... well one
might say
somewhat less than urgent :-)

According to Statistia some 43% of U.S. households owned
one or more
guns in 2017. That is (I believe) some 126,220,000
households with
guns and 14,000 gun deaths (not, I believe, including self
inflected
death) or a rate of 1 gun death per 9,015.7 households.

And Auto Deaths? Some 37,133 deaths in 2017 - the same
year as the
14,000 gun deaths. Or one traffic death per 3,399 families.

But than, we all know that they are "traffic accidents",
which seem to
be acceptable and "GUN DEATHS!" which are horrifying.


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.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. How often _does_
that happen
where you live?

Well, I gave you the figures, about 61% of the U.S. numbers.

No, John, you didn't give me the numbers I asked for. Nice
try at sidestepping, though.

Here was my question: "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?" And I repeated: "How often
_does_ that happen where you live?"

I'm not surprised you have occasional killings using knives,
clubs and hands, as you describe. But how many _mass_
killings? How many instances of a guy with a knife quickly
slaying, say, 20 people who were shopping and injuring a
couple dozen more?



I don't know from Thailand but in Chicago it's all day every day:
https://maggionews.com/
https://heyjackass.com/

I see very few reports of mass killings using knives.

Well, of course not. these are modern times and modern man is too lazy
to undertake "mass killings" with a butcher knife but in years gone
my, when man kind was a bit more energetic...

For example:
In the year 390 when Roman Emperor Theodosius I sent troops to
Thessalonica in order to quell some civil unrest. and 7,000 were
killed.

On May 20, 1645 Qing troops led by Prince Dodo of the Qing Dynasty
killed as many as 80,000 people.

Machetes were prominent during the Rwandan genocide much more recently.

Yes. If one really wants to commit mass murder one can find a way. Or
rather the shortage of firearms has not, historically, prevented mass
killings.

No rational person can claim that the availability rapid fire guns
hasn't made mass killings far easier.

And the sale, on the open market of fertilizer and diesel fuel makes
the manufacturer of really great mass killing devices amazingly easy.

Why are you picking out firearms when, as I have mentioned, a couple
of guys were able to make a device that killed and wounded more than a
thousand people. Without, apparently, a gun in the house.

Ah well, I suppose that fertilizer and diesel fuel are rather mundane
subjects while a firearm is really something to get excited about.
"Ohhhh, guns kill!"

Obviously, when the most killed with firearms is something like 50
people at one go and even a small bomb kills, perhaps, three times
that number one should fear the firearms while ignoring the fertilizer
and diesel fuel.

Given that a couple of guys were able to kill 168 people, injure more
than 680 others, and effectively destroy a multi-story office building
, destroy or damaged 324 other buildings within a 16-block radius, and
destroyed or burned 86 cars, causing an estimated $652 million worth
of damage. The deadliest terrorist attack in the history of the United
States (until "9/11") and I don't hear a thing about the dangers of
fertilizer and diesel fuel.

But shoot 50 people with an M-16 and everyone starts jumping up and
down and waving their arms in the air and shouting "down with guns".
How about "down with diesel fuel"?

The most recent shooting was, apparently, 22 people, and the President
was going to visit.

But put it another way, "less than 6 hours of normal U.S. traffic"....
and nobody gives a damn.


And the 2nd amendment was written at a time when rapid fire guns didn't
exist. Check out this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9UFyNy-rw4
especially the last bit, from about 6:50 to 7:44

Right, a comedian, on the stage. Certainly a logical and meaningful
condemnation of the 2nd Amendment.

Your portrayal of me accepting bombs is far less accurate and WAY less
witty than Jim Jeffries bit on gun nuts.

But in an effort to seek agreement, here's what I propose: Let's make
U.S. gun laws exactly as strict as U.S. bomb laws. Will that satisfy you?


You mean that fertilizer and diesel fuel have strict laws to control
them in the U.S. ? Amazing! I had not known that..

(A British colleague of mine agreed that the attitude of U.S. gun nuts
was crazy. He used to snark "Sure, and when bombs are outlawed, only
outlaws will have bombs.")

Sure, you can make up any snide little saying that you wish. But do
you really feel that it is more horrifying to shoot 22 people than to
kill outright 160 people and injure another 600?

But perhaps it is simply a matter of numbers and it is perfectly
normal to kill about 100 people daily on the highway but shooting 1/4
that number is horrifying.
--

Cheers,

John B.