Crazy eBay offers

On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms

wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun
ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high
gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your
arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is
associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is
actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a
result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html


One might also look at a state by state gun ownership
compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun
ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder
rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of
25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all
murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or
another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm
murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before
that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a
contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But
a contributing cause. Population density also plays a
factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one
around to murder. Washington DC has a population density
of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square
mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of
opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28
people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about
1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of
hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him
four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and
24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate
that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just
3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska
you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one
person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find one
person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out
looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even
wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5
square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not
necessarily
match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a
multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would
say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun
ownership significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least
certain types of guns by at least certain types of people
would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter
background checks, which the vast majority of the country
and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it
harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?




Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.

We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against
burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun
laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work,
right?


That's where we are now and it's not working.

Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the
citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems.

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

On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms

wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun
ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high
gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your
arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is
associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is
actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a
result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html



One might also look at a state by state gun ownership
compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun
ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder
rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of
25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all
murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or
another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm
murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John.* I think Frank stated before
that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a
contributing factor in murders.* Not the only cause.* But
a contributing cause.* Population density also plays a
factor too.* Hard to murder someone if there is no one
around to murder.* Washington DC has a population density
of 11,686 people per square mile.* So in every square
mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder.* Lots of
opportunities.* Alaska has a population density of 1.28
people per square mile.* So there is only 0.28, about
1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile.* Kind of
hard to murder a fourth of a person.* Do you murder him
four times to equal one murder?* So using your 7.7 and
24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate
that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska.* But its just
3.14 times higher.* DC is doing pretty good.* In Alaska
you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one
person to murder.* Do you know how hard it is to find one
person in 4-5 square miles?* You'd wear yourself out
looking for someone to murder.* Or forget why you even
wanted to murder him by the time you found him.* 4-5
square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not
necessarily
match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a
multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would
say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun
ownership significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least
certain types of guns by at least certain types of people
would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter
background checks, which the vast majority of the country
and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it
harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?




Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.

We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against
burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun
laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work,
right?


That's where we are now and it's not working.

Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry,
almost nothing earns jail time it seems.

Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling assault
weapons to their bros...


--
- Frank Krygowski

Am 21.04.2021 um 22:12 schrieb AMuzi:

Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.

We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against
burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun
laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work,
right?


That's where we are now and it's not working.

Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the citizenry,
almost nothing earns jail time it seems.

If nothing earns jail time in the USA, how come the USA has such a huge
jail population compared to European countries?

I can see only two possibilities:
a) people get more jail time for similar offences in the USA than in Europe
b) people in the USA commit significantly mroe serious offences than in
Europe, and then the question is why.

Rolf

On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms

wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich
scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun
ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high
gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your
arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun
ownership is
associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is
actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a
result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html



One might also look at a state by state gun ownership
compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun
ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder
rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of
25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all
murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is
24.2/100,000. or
another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm
murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated
before
that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a
contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause.
But
a contributing cause. Population density also plays a
factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one
around to murder. Washington DC has a population
density
of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square
mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of
opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28
people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about
1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of
hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him
four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and
24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate
that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just
3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska
you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one
person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find
one
person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out
looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even
wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5
square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not
necessarily
match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a
multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist
would
say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun
ownership significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at
least
certain types of guns by at least certain types of people
would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter
background checks, which the vast majority of the country
and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it
harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?




Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.

We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against
burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun
laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work,
right?


That's where we are now and it's not working.

Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the
citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems.

Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling
assault weapons to their bros...



Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years?
I must have missed it. Sturmgewehr are few and far between
in crime reports.


A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it
is not a 'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries,
no military issues AR-15 or anything at all like it.

Stolen pistols are another thing altogether.


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

On Tuesday, April 20, 2021 at 11:32:34 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 7:46:10 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 14:00:59 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 12:57:44 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2021 07:26:10 -0700 (PDT), Tom Kunich
wrote:

On Friday, April 16, 2021 at 4:08:35 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Thursday, April 15, 2021 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:
It doesn't matter in the least that the Democrats absolutely HATE the Jews and Israel.
https://history.state.gov/milestones...reation-israel
"On May 14, 1948, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, proclaimed the establishment of the State of Israel. U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized the new nation on the same day."

Harry Truman was a Democrat.
Why do you believe that Truman did that? Because he loved Jews? Or because it was a convenient end to the Jewish problem in Europe? I swear, your IQ couldn't open a bottle cap.
Please try not to write your own version of history. Truman was
undecided and needed a push in the right direction, which occurred
about two months earlier:

"Jewish Leaders Convince Truman to Recognize Jewish State"
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-a-few-humble-coins-and-the-making-of-israel-quot

Eventually, most countries recognized the State of Israel:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/international-recognition-of-israel

Is this the same Truman that started the Korean War at the behest of the French?
"that started the Korean War at the behest of the French?"??

Goodness, Gracious, I didn't know that the French had an interest in
Korea. Please tell us some details.
--
Cheers,

John B.

I always thought the French were involved in Vietnam. Not Korea. At least that is what I recall from the history classes I took as a child in school.. I don't have a degree in history so I could be wrong on the subject. But I am fairly certain France and Vietnam were linked.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Vie...tnam-by-France
I was right. France had been in Vietnam since the 1850s. Before the US Civil War in the 1860s.
France was somewhat involved in Korea because of mutual aid treaties. But they were still rebuilding after WW II so it wasn't as it they were much of a participant. As for Vietnam, at the time it was called "French Indochina" and President Eisenhower was forced into supporting the French but only to the point of offering military advisors. France soon saw it as a lost cause and with their war-time debts gave up. Kennedy is the one that actually put American combat troops into Vietnam and then Lyndon Johnson multiplied that. Nixon who from the very first didn't want us anywhere in the far east, felt that he could pull out making the US look like their lost a war so he increased the Air War. and Hanoi admitted defeat. Nixon pulled out but the money it would have required to support South Vietnam was withheld by the Democrats to make it look like Nixon lost a war. So the entirety of Vietnam was lost, tens of thousands of South Vietnamese were murdered or sent to prisons and forced labor camps. Most of the families never made contact again until they escaped to the US and finally made contact. This is why so may SV are so unhappy all of the time. Almost their entire lives were lost to communism.

On 4/21/2021 4:15 PM, Rolf Mantel wrote:
Am 21.04.2021 um 22:12 schrieb AMuzi:

Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.

We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against
burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun
laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work,
right?


That's where we are now and it's not working.

Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the
citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems.

If nothing earns jail time in the USA, how come the USA has
such a huge jail population compared to European countries?

I can see only two possibilities:
a) people get more jail time for similar offences in the USA
than in Europe
b) people in the USA commit significantly mroe serious
offences than in Europe, and then the question is why.

Rolf

Interesting you should mention that. I read a piece a few
months ago about 'sentencing disparity' which found that
longer first imprisonment was almost entirely due to
multiple priors with 'deferred sentence'. The judge has a
small leeway within sentencing guidelines set by the
relevant Justice Department (State or Federal). Prior
criminal activity is an heavily weighted component.

Outliers aside (there are always outliers to any large set)
it's generally hard to get into a State prison on the first
adventure.

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

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 12:31:28 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 11:58:42 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 9:50:58 AM UTC-7, wrote:
stupidity

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/202...iden-smallest/

Do you even know the above link you posted is a PRO FAVOR SUPPORT Trump website? And you think it is relevant to anything? On that website they have the following sentence "The polls are garbage, the current race is not even close. The rally numbers prove it. President Trump is way ahead of former VP Joe Biden." It was also published on November 3, 2020 at 9:37 AM. Before any votes were counted on election day.
I hate to have to keep pointing things out to you but they run polls at all of the balloting places on a scientific manner. These are USUALLY correct. Trump's lead was in fact the largest Conservative count in history. What wasn't usual was the HUGE lead that Biden turned up with. There were NOT that many people that suddenly decided not only to vote but to vote for a man that had remained hidden for 8 months. If you don't realize that the Democrats threw an election there's no way it can be explained to you.

Where I used to vote - just a quarter of a mile away, they totally changed to a spot 5 miles away and in a location that was almost invisible in the far back of a parking lot. There were NO SIGNS pointing to it. Older people simply couldn't get there. Previously you would fill out a ballot then walk over and insert the ballot into the machine yourself and the ballots would fall into a box which retained the ballots so they could be recounted if a recount demanded. This time after you filled out the ballot you carried it over and put it in a slow in the top of a soft-side suitcase NO ONE saw their ballot counted. This was done supposedly with bi-party inspectors but these people were not announced and who knows if they even bothered to count Republican ballots since they say right at the top of the page? NONE of this was necessary and we hadn't been ordered to lock-down or wear masks at that time.

This was plainly a thrown election.

On Wednesday, April 21, 2021 at 12:53:19 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 6:47:12 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, April 18, 2021 at 4:26:15 PM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 12:59:56 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 4/17/2021 5:35 PM, wrote:
On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 4:08:53 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Saturday, April 17, 2021 at 1:46:54 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/16/2021 10:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
I don't own a television. Let's
consult an expert:

https://nypost.com/2017/10/21/the-ot...-doesnt-cover/
Not owning a television sounds like some nice virtue signaling. But
repeatedly reading and quoting the New York Post as a source? That seems
like effective negation.
So you want to take guns away from honest law abiding Americans but you don't care that along American roads the illegal gangs are using fully automatic weapons and anti-tank weapons. But don't listen to the New York Post simply because they are the only one's reporting it.

In 2019, 10,213 people in the USA were murdered by firearms.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/...y-weapon-used/

In 2018, 10,265 murdered by firearms. In 2017, 11,006 murdered by firearms. In 2016, 10,372 murdered by firearms. In 2015, 9,103 murdered by firearms. In 2014, 7,803 murdered by firearms.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ta-table-8.xls

I could not find any numbers for how many times the honest law abiding Americans used their guns to protect themselves and family and stop criminals. The stories about that subject were fraught with discrepancies. One study/article said between 500K and 2M times per year guns saved people. So 50 to 200 times the number murdered each year. 50 to 200 times more the good guys used guns than the bad guys just seems a bit hard to believe. If it were true it seems that the news hour would have to expand to news ten hour to cover all the times people were saved. And just a couple minutes to report the number of murders each day. But it seems the news today is about 15 minutes talking about all the people murdered each day. So I just don't know what the number of honest law abiding American gun owners is.

There are about 600,000 Americans dead from Covid-19 now. Year or so after it started. That is 60 times greater than the number of people murdered with firearms in the USA each year. Don't know if that is good or bad.. But the virus seems to be even better at killing than guns.

A comment on Tom's "honest law abiding" statement. In the numerous recent mass murders, the family and friends of the murderer were interviewed after the murders. In many cases the murderer was described by people who knew the murderer closely as being a good person. And the family or friends could not believe the mass murderer committed such an act. So maybe the term "honest law abiding" does not apply to as many people as we believe.


And about 40,000 people die from hospital-acquired infection.

That's a small subset of 'death by infection' and also a
small subset of 'iatric error death'.

And it's been growing. Papers are written, numbers are
published, systems change is exhorted, everyone agrees it's
preventable - physicians, administrators, staff and most
importantly insurance carriers. Yet here we are, nearly 4x
firearms homicides every year. Where's the breathless
reportage on that?

As to news coverage versus reality, yes we're a large
diverse and (historically down to today) relatively violent
country with some newsy mayhem or another every morning.

https://newsbeyonddetroit.net/2021/0...tended-victim/

Yet no one gives one good god damn about a dozen or so black
and latin gang members shooting each other every night in
Chicago with a couple to a few deaths every night. It's
often noted that the death-per-shooting rate has dropped
only because of excellent combat surgeons in area hospitals.
They get a lot of practice.

It gets worse. Chicago is, while much smaller than in my
youth, still a large city. The rates per population of St
Louis, New Orleans, Baltimore and other medium cities are
actually worse than Chicago.


p.s. Credit's due to Mr Seaton for separating firearms
homicide from suicide and negligent discharge, an often
invoked conflation.
Well, as the pro-gunners have often said, "guns don't kill people,
people kill people" and it is true.

The argument that "well, if we limited gun ownership we would limit
gun deaths" may, or may not be true, after all the largest mass
murders committed in the U.S. Timothy McVeigh - 168 deaths, 9-11 -
2,977 deaths were not committed with guns.

In the U.S. some 39% of families have one or more guns, in Norway the
figure is 32% and in Switzerland 27%. The intestinal homicide rate in
the U.S. 4.96/100,000, Norway is 0.47/100,000 and Switzerland it is
0.50/100,000.

So, the U,S. with 21% more guns than Norway and 30% more then
Switzerland commits 10.5 times as many murders then in Norway and 9.92
times the murders in Switzerland.

The point of all this figuring is to point out that gun ownership, per
se, is not the cause of high murder rates.'
May or may not be true? Well I suppose that the cities with absolutely the most strict gun laws just happen to be those with the largest amount of gun crimes. I suppose that is just a freak of the statistics.

Tom, in this post and in the post immediately following this one, you are confusing "correlation" and "causation". This is a very common mistake. An example to illustrate your misinterpretation. Eating and obesity. A correlation. Not a causation. Usually, frequently, eating a lot correlates with being fat. But the true cause of obesity is consuming more calories than you burn and forcing your body to store the excess calories as fat. One can eat a lot and not be fat. Eating in and of itself does not cause obesity. You can eat a lot and run a marathon or ride a century (American century, not easy metric century) every day and not be obese.
No one is surprised that you get things so screwed up. So according to you, you cannot get obese from overeating and you can be obese with controlled eating. That is WHY starving people are so fat. You do not understand the meaning of causation and correlation.

All of the largest cities under Democrat Control and with the strongest gun laws HAVE the highest murder rates. THAT is a correlation. The causation is Democrats willing to accept high crime rates and do nothing about it. This is precisely what they are presently doing. Seattle and Portland have ruined the most beautiful cities on the west coast San Francisco is a dumping ground. I drove up to a local long climb, parked at the top and walked down the hill with a large garbage bag and cleaned all of the trash from along the side of the road. At the bottom I placed this bag in a spot where the garbage truck would pick it up. Less than one week later I rode up that climb and you could not tell that a thing had been done. Why do you suppose that is? Are drivers on that road the causation or is the trash some sort of correlation?

On 4/21/2021 6:55 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 3:37 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 4:12 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 1:43 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 4/21/2021 12:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B.
wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms

wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich
scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun
ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high
gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your
arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of courseâ„¢.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun
ownership is
associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is
actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a
result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html




One might also look at a state by state gun ownership
compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun
ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder
rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of
25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all
murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is
24.2/100,000. or
another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm
murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John.* I think Frank stated
before
that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a
contributing factor in murders.* Not the only cause.
But
a contributing cause.* Population density also plays a
factor too.* Hard to murder someone if there is no one
around to murder.* Washington DC has a population
density
of 11,686 people per square mile.* So in every square
mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder.* Lots of
opportunities.* Alaska has a population density of 1.28
people per square mile.* So there is only 0.28, about
1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile.* Kind of
hard to murder a fourth of a person.* Do you murder him
four times to equal one murder?* So using your 7.7 and
24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate
that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska.* But its just
3.14 times higher.* DC is doing pretty good.* In Alaska
you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one
person to murder.* Do you know how hard it is to find
one
person in 4-5 square miles?* You'd wear yourself out
looking for someone to murder.* Or forget why you even
wanted to murder him by the time you found him.* 4-5
square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not
necessarily
match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a
multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist
would
say otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun
ownership significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at
least
certain types of guns by at least certain types of people
would reduce the problem. That's the idea behind tighter
background checks, which the vast majority of the country
and the majority of NRA members favor. Why _not_ make it
harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?




Good idea.
We ought to have laws against burglary and robbery.
Can't wait to see how that turns out.

We could try the opposite tack: Reduce the laws against
burglary and robbery, making them as weak as current gun
laws. Because hey, every violation means laws don't work,
right?


That's where we are now and it's not working.

Carjacking, beating women, firing stolen pistols into the
citizenry, almost nothing earns jail time it seems.

Or punks selling guns to other punks, militia boyz selling
assault weapons to their bros...



Was there an assault weapon in the news the past few years? I must have
missed it.

IIRC, at least one of the Bundy guys in Oregon had an illegal fully
automatic gun. And one of the Proud Boys caught in Portland had 1000
rounds with him.

But yes, he probably just intended them for target practice, carefully
squeezing off one round ever five seconds then leisurely changing his 10
round magazine for a fresh one.

A semi sport rifle is not only not an 'assault' rifle but it is not a
'weapon of war' either. In all 193 or so countries, no military issues
AR-15 or anything at all like it.

Please be more specific. "Anything at all like it" is pretty vague. And
an AR-15 looks a lot closer to an AK47 than to, say, a classic Marlin
deer rifle or Winchester shotgun or almost any squirrel gun.

Why do the AR and AK look so similar? What are the advantages of that
geometry over that of a classic long gun?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:12:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 4/21/2021 6:00 AM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Apr 2021 01:57:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, April 19, 2021 at 6:13:26 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 12:37:33 -0700, sms
wrote:
On 4/18/2021 7:42 PM, News 2021 wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2021 16:49:26 -0700, Tom Kunich scribed:


Explain how his works Frank, exactly how is high gun ownership a
contributing factor when all of the areas with high gun ownership are
also the safest areas?

Useless question but do you have data to back up your arse pluck?

Tom is wrong of course™.

What is true is that the prevalence of gun ownership is associated with
increases in violent crime.

What is not clear is whether this gun prevalence is actually causing
more violent crime or whether gun prevalence is a result of the increase
in violent crime.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html
One might also look at a state by state gun ownership compared to gun
crimes... Alaska which has the highest rate of gun ownership in the
U.S. has a gun ownership of 61.7% and a firearm murder rate of
5.3/100,000. Washington D.C. has a gun ownership of 25.9% and a
firearm murder rate of 18.0/100,000.

And to add even more fuel to the fire... the over all murder rate in
Alaska is 7.7/100,000 and in D.C. it is 24.2/100,000. or another way
of saying the same thing, Alaska has a non firearm murder rate of
2.4/100,000 and D.C. of 6.2/100,000.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Just to argue with you John. I think Frank stated before that gun ownership or amount of firearms was a contributing factor in murders. Not the only cause. But a contributing cause. Population density also plays a factor too. Hard to murder someone if there is no one around to murder. Washington DC has a population density of 11,686 people per square mile. So in every square mile in DC there are 11,685 people to murder. Lots of opportunities. Alaska has a population density of 1.28 people per square mile. So there is only 0.28, about 1/4th of a person, to murder per square mile. Kind of hard to murder a fourth of a person. Do you murder him four times to equal one murder? So using your 7.7 and 24.2 murder rates above, DC should have a murder rate that is 9,129 times greater than Alaska. But its just 3.14 times higher. DC is doing pretty good. In Alaska you would have to search 4 or 5 square miles to find one person to murder. Do you know how hard it is to find
one
person in 4-5 square miles? You'd wear yourself out looking for someone to murder. Or forget why you even wanted to murder him by the time you found him. 4-5 square miles is a whole lot of land.

My point is that gun ownership and murder rates do not necessarily
match.

Of course they don't. Gun violence is obviously a multi-variate problem.

But it is a problem, and only a Kunich-level extremist would say
otherwise. So the question becomes, would reducing gun ownership
significantly reduce the problem?

I think it's obvious that reducing the ownership of at least certain
types of guns by at least certain types of people would reduce the
problem. That's the idea behind tighter background checks, which the
vast majority of the country and the majority of NRA members favor. Why
_not_ make it harder for a punk drug dealer to get a Glock?

Here firearms are divided into two categories - military and
non-military. Military type firearms are forbidden for possession by
all, except for military when ordered to be armed, and non-military
firearms are controlled in some manner with licensing and I'm not
familiar with the details although I do know that possession of
firearm is limited to Thai citizens.

Possession of a, say 1917 model colt .45 caliber pistol, which is
considered a military firearm, will get you a jail term.

An easy enough and probably logical division and there are precedence
in the U.S. for similar practices dating back to 1934.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...ted_fire arms

As an aside, I be live that the NRA went bankrupt :-)
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/15/b...xas/index.html
--
Cheers,

John B.