Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:18:17 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 9:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Try reading the 2nd amendment in a calm and impartial
manner. It
doesn't state that a gun owner must be a member of a
militia in order
to own a firearm.

That's rather simplistic, since it was well over 200 years
before a conservative majority supreme court narrowly came
to the Heller decision.


Oh fer chrissake.
Read any contemporary materials of the Founders. The
militia are able bodied male citizens as a whole and yes
they damned well ought to be armed, practiced and organized.
In the case of the Colonies, officers were elected and
despite most of their time being spent scratching a living
from the earth, in an emergency they proved well up to
myriad challenges.

I don't disagree. So what part of that do we have today? Are the gun-totin'
able bodied male citizens practiced and organized? Do they elect officers?
In an emergency - like, perhaps, a military invasion from Canada - would
they prove up to the myriad challenges? Is that _really_ what the immense
level of U.S. gun ownership is all about?

I think it's really about what Jim Jeffries said: “'**** off. I like guns.'
It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you’ve got..�

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 22:18:15 -0500, AMuzi wrote:



Oh fer chrissake.
Read any contemporary materials of the Founders. The militia are able
bodied male citizens as a whole and yes they damned well ought to be
armed, practiced and organized.
In the case of the Colonies, officers were elected and
despite most of their time being spent scratching a living from the
earth, in an emergency they proved well up to myriad challenges.

An in those times, a well regulated milityia made absolute sense. Now,
with modern technology,f the USa doesn't know about any armed invaders,
someone hasn't been paying attention.

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 22:33:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/8/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/8/2019 2:17 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 22:22:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:57 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:57:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


The prohibition against hand grenades and other bombs works pretty well.
So do the restrictions on machine guns. Very few own mortars or flame
throwers. We should be able to apply reasonable restrictions to guns.
Let the pretend soldier boys play with virtual military arms in computer
games. That should be enough to satisfy their fantasies. It works in
most countries.

Perhaps in the U.S. where apparently the citizens are too complacent
to make their own bombs but here, in a less well developed country, we
just has a rash of some 6 bombs that exploded (and 1 "dud") in Bangkok
in the past few days. All "home made" bombs. In the South home made
bombs are so common that they have recently banned metal LPG tanks (a
common container used in home bomb making).

As you know, I'm interested in data. How many bomb deaths per year?

It is hard to say as I can't find any statistics.

That _should_ make you realize that the problem is relatively tiny! IOW,
bomb control works pretty well.

But I did find a
Times report dated August 2016 that stated that the bombings had
"ground on for more than a decade and killed more than 5,000 people".
https://time.com/4449653/thailand-bombing-what-to-know/

So maybe 500 per year? Less than one bomb fatality per 100,000
population during an insurgency, i.e. a low-level attempt at war.

The U.S. more than triples that rate using guns, with no need for any
insurgency.


Well sort of. You are ignoring the fact that the greatest number of
bombs are exploded in the southern most provinces of Pattani, Yala and
Narathwat with a combined population of 2,006,330. Or about the same
as the U.S. state of Nebraska. Now if 500 a year had been killed by
bombs in Nebraska for the past 10 years do you think there might be an
outcry?

Yes, "if." However, that's not what we're actually dealing with.

Like it or not, your present country's gun laws correlate with much
lower gun deaths than the U.S., and bombs do not make up the difference,
as you tried to imply.

Frank, the intentional murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 while
in the U.S. it is 5.3/100,000.

Which I'm sure that you will assume that is solely because of the
lenient gun laws in the U.S.

Yet other countries with high gun ownership have noticeably different
murder rates. The U.S. has an estimated private gun ownership of
120/100 people. Yemen has an estimated private gun ownership of a bit
less than half the U.S. some 52.8/100. According what you appear to
say it seems logical that Yemen with it's much lower gun ownership
must have a lower murder rate.

Unfortunately your thesis doesn't seem to hold water as Yemen with
only 44% of the gun ownership of the U.S. has an intentional homicide
rate of 6.66/100,000 or 125% that of the U.S.

How can that be? Less than half of the guns and more murders?

Do you suppose that the old theme song of the pro-gunners, that "guns
don't kill people, people kill people", is true?
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:58:32 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 22:33:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/8/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/8/2019 2:17 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 22:22:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:57 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:57:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


The prohibition against hand grenades and other bombs works pretty well.
So do the restrictions on machine guns. Very few own mortars or flame
throwers. We should be able to apply reasonable restrictions to guns.
Let the pretend soldier boys play with virtual military arms in computer
games. That should be enough to satisfy their fantasies. It works in
most countries.

Perhaps in the U.S. where apparently the citizens are too complacent
to make their own bombs but here, in a less well developed country, we
just has a rash of some 6 bombs that exploded (and 1 "dud") in Bangkok
in the past few days. All "home made" bombs. In the South home made
bombs are so common that they have recently banned metal LPG tanks (a
common container used in home bomb making).

As you know, I'm interested in data. How many bomb deaths per year?

It is hard to say as I can't find any statistics.

That _should_ make you realize that the problem is relatively tiny! IOW,
bomb control works pretty well.

But I did find a
Times report dated August 2016 that stated that the bombings had
"ground on for more than a decade and killed more than 5,000 people".
https://time.com/4449653/thailand-bombing-what-to-know/

So maybe 500 per year? Less than one bomb fatality per 100,000
population during an insurgency, i.e. a low-level attempt at war.

The U.S. more than triples that rate using guns, with no need for any
insurgency.


Well sort of. You are ignoring the fact that the greatest number of
bombs are exploded in the southern most provinces of Pattani, Yala and
Narathwat with a combined population of 2,006,330. Or about the same
as the U.S. state of Nebraska. Now if 500 a year had been killed by
bombs in Nebraska for the past 10 years do you think there might be an
outcry?

Yes, "if." However, that's not what we're actually dealing with.

Like it or not, your present country's gun laws correlate with much
lower gun deaths than the U.S., and bombs do not make up the difference,
as you tried to imply.

Frank, the intentional murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 while
in the U.S. it is 5.3/100,000.

Which I'm sure that you will assume that is solely because of the
lenient gun laws in the U.S.

Yet other countries with high gun ownership have noticeably different
murder rates. The U.S. has an estimated private gun ownership of
120/100 people. Yemen has an estimated private gun ownership of a bit
less than half the U.S. some 52.8/100. According what you appear to
say it seems logical that Yemen with it's much lower gun ownership
must have a lower murder rate.

Unfortunately your thesis doesn't seem to hold water as Yemen with
only 44% of the gun ownership of the U.S. has an intentional homicide
rate of 6.66/100,000 or 125% that of the U.S.

How can that be? Less than half of the guns and more murders?

sigh For your education:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multivariate

How about comparing the U.S. to countries and economies that are at least
vaguely similar? In other words, remove a few dozen variables. What do you
get for relative murder rates?

And by the way: Since you argue so strenuously in favor of guns, how are you
doing living in a country where they are so restricted? Is it hell on earth
for you? How do you get by?

- Frank Krygowski

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 20:46:18 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:18:17 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 9:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Try reading the 2nd amendment in a calm and impartial
manner. It
doesn't state that a gun owner must be a member of a
militia in order
to own a firearm.

That's rather simplistic, since it was well over 200 years
before a conservative majority supreme court narrowly came
to the Heller decision.


Oh fer chrissake.
Read any contemporary materials of the Founders. The
militia are able bodied male citizens as a whole and yes
they damned well ought to be armed, practiced and organized.
In the case of the Colonies, officers were elected and
despite most of their time being spent scratching a living
from the earth, in an emergency they proved well up to
myriad challenges.

I don't disagree. So what part of that do we have today? Are the gun-totin'
able bodied male citizens practiced and organized? Do they elect officers?
In an emergency - like, perhaps, a military invasion from Canada - would
they prove up to the myriad challenges? Is that _really_ what the immense
level of U.S. gun ownership is all about?


But Frank, he U.S. Constitution contains sections that allow changes,
it is not written on tablets of stone. If the Bill of Rights is
outmoded and no longer necessary why hasn't someone removed it?

Perhaps because the U.S. is a democracy an your opinion isn't
necessarily that of the majority of the population?


I think it's really about what Jim Jeffries said: “'**** off. I like guns.'
It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you’ve got.”

- Frank Krygowski
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 23:36:21 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 8/8/2019 10:17 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
My point was a little finer -- why concentrate on those
deliberately
killed 20 at a time, when those killed in ones or twos are really a much
bigger problem?

You're complaining about elementary human nature. One murder is
regrettable and raises outrage. 20+ murders at once naturally incites
much more outrage. The situation is closely paralleled whenever
there's a traffic crash that kills many, a landslide that kills many,
etc.

I don't think that's all it is -- the press amplifies mass shootings in
particular to a remarkable degree. As an example, I recently read about
this incident in the risks digest (comp.risk):

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49027178

33 people dead in a terrible arson in Japan, a country considerably less
murderous and more law abiding than the US. An attack on an artistic
enterprise, with the loss of a great deal of material as well. Yet
stories on it seem oddly hard to find compared to recent mass shootings.

Maybe it's just me.


I believe that it is a maxim of the News Business that "disasters sell
newspapers".


If a semi truck rammed a school bus and killed 29 kids, you'd be ill
advised to show up saying "It's OK, kids get killed in cars all the
time." It would be far more productive to say "Let's look into
measures to reduce _all_ motoring deaths."

And yet school buses are among the safest vehicles there are, so *yes*,
making them even safer might well be a misappropriation of time, money,
and effort.

Frank is constantly reminding us to rely on data, for example on the
relative scarcity of car bike collisions from behind. That does not
mean I will attend a memorial service for the next unfortunate killed in
that way with a sign belittling "fear from the rear".

But it does appear that you're belittling almost 30 people killed in
just a few hours.

No more than you have belittled those run down on their bicycles from
behind.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 21:13:38 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:58:32 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 22:33:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/8/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/8/2019 2:17 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 22:22:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:57 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:57:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


The prohibition against hand grenades and other bombs works pretty well.
So do the restrictions on machine guns. Very few own mortars or flame
throwers. We should be able to apply reasonable restrictions to guns.
Let the pretend soldier boys play with virtual military arms in computer
games. That should be enough to satisfy their fantasies. It works in
most countries.

Perhaps in the U.S. where apparently the citizens are too complacent
to make their own bombs but here, in a less well developed country, we
just has a rash of some 6 bombs that exploded (and 1 "dud") in Bangkok
in the past few days. All "home made" bombs. In the South home made
bombs are so common that they have recently banned metal LPG tanks (a
common container used in home bomb making).

As you know, I'm interested in data. How many bomb deaths per year?

It is hard to say as I can't find any statistics.

That _should_ make you realize that the problem is relatively tiny! IOW,
bomb control works pretty well.

But I did find a
Times report dated August 2016 that stated that the bombings had
"ground on for more than a decade and killed more than 5,000 people".
https://time.com/4449653/thailand-bombing-what-to-know/

So maybe 500 per year? Less than one bomb fatality per 100,000
population during an insurgency, i.e. a low-level attempt at war.

The U.S. more than triples that rate using guns, with no need for any
insurgency.


Well sort of. You are ignoring the fact that the greatest number of
bombs are exploded in the southern most provinces of Pattani, Yala and
Narathwat with a combined population of 2,006,330. Or about the same
as the U.S. state of Nebraska. Now if 500 a year had been killed by
bombs in Nebraska for the past 10 years do you think there might be an
outcry?

Yes, "if." However, that's not what we're actually dealing with.

Like it or not, your present country's gun laws correlate with much
lower gun deaths than the U.S., and bombs do not make up the difference,
as you tried to imply.

Frank, the intentional murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 while
in the U.S. it is 5.3/100,000.

Which I'm sure that you will assume that is solely because of the
lenient gun laws in the U.S.

Yet other countries with high gun ownership have noticeably different
murder rates. The U.S. has an estimated private gun ownership of
120/100 people. Yemen has an estimated private gun ownership of a bit
less than half the U.S. some 52.8/100. According what you appear to
say it seems logical that Yemen with it's much lower gun ownership
must have a lower murder rate.

Unfortunately your thesis doesn't seem to hold water as Yemen with
only 44% of the gun ownership of the U.S. has an intentional homicide
rate of 6.66/100,000 or 125% that of the U.S.

How can that be? Less than half of the guns and more murders?

sigh For your education:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multivariate

How about comparing the U.S. to countries and economies that are at least
vaguely similar? In other words, remove a few dozen variables. What do you
get for relative murder rates?

And by the way: Since you argue so strenuously in favor of guns, how are you
doing living in a country where they are so restricted? Is it hell on earth
for you? How do you get by?

- Frank Krygowski

Ah but Frank, I'm not arguing strenuously in favor of guns. I'm merely
trying, admittedly against fierce resistance, to get you to face
reality.
--

Cheers,

John B.

AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 9:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:23:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/8/2019 4:54 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 06:43:41 -0000 (UTC), news18

wrote:

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 08:45:13 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Actually I have few complaints of much more stringent
gun laws that any
that you have stipulated so far. I am merely trying to
point out to a
very opinionated and generally ignorant of the subject
individual that
over simplistic laws are not very effective.

GovCo says that the Australian Laws have prevent any
further mass
shootings since the Port Arthur event. The result has
been to require
people wishing to use firearms to have a valid reason
undertake some firm
are education courses.

Now, we tend to have mtor vehciles as the weapon for
mass events.



But from your posts, I wonder if there are _any_ gun
laws you would not
consider "ludicrase" [sic].

I asked about the gun laws where you now live. You
seemed give data
indicating they work. Is it hell on earth living
under those laws?
Should we adopt them in the U.S.? Or are there others
that you would
propose?

Well, to apply Thai Gun laws to the U.S. would require
the removal of
the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, probably a
largely impossible
action.

Not So. The emphais would just need to shift towards
"well regulated" and
requirements for identity checks and and basic firearm
safety performance
could be enforced.

But doesn't the U.S. have a well regulated militia. I
had assumed that
was what the National Guard was/is. I think that they
even send them
overseas these days.

And if someone wants to play soldier, they should join
the National
Guard, an _actual_ well regulated militia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...National_Guard

According to that site, they have about 450,000 members.
But in the U.S.
there are close to 400 million privately owned guns.

I have no problem with guns used for hunting, but it's a
sure bet that
those are the minority of that 400 million. That means
hundreds of
firepower fetishers for every actual militia member.

Try reading the 2nd amendment in a calm and impartial
manner. It
doesn't state that a gun owner must be a member of a
militia in order
to own a firearm.

That's rather simplistic, since it was well over 200 years
before a conservative majority supreme court narrowly came
to the Heller decision.


Oh fer chrissake.
Read any contemporary materials of the Founders. The
militia are able bodied male citizens as a whole and yes
they damned well ought to be armed, practiced and organized.
In the case of the Colonies, officers were elected and
despite most of their time being spent scratching a living
from the earth, in an emergency they proved well up to
myriad challenges.


“they damned well ought to be armed, practiced and organized. �

Well, as Meatloaf might have sang in the 70s, “One out of three ain’t bad�
:-)

On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/8/2019 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:18:17 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 9:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Try reading the 2nd amendment in a calm and impartial
manner. It
doesn't state that a gun owner must be a member of a
militia in order
to own a firearm.

That's rather simplistic, since it was well over 200 years
before a conservative majority supreme court narrowly came
to the Heller decision.


Oh fer chrissake.
Read any contemporary materials of the Founders. The
militia are able bodied male citizens as a whole and yes
they damned well ought to be armed, practiced and organized.
In the case of the Colonies, officers were elected and
despite most of their time being spent scratching a living
from the earth, in an emergency they proved well up to
myriad challenges.

I don't disagree. So what part of that do we have today? Are the gun-totin'
able bodied male citizens practiced and organized? Do they elect officers?
In an emergency - like, perhaps, a military invasion from Canada - would
they prove up to the myriad challenges? Is that _really_ what the immense
level of U.S. gun ownership is all about?

I think it's really about what Jim Jeffries said: “'**** off. I like guns.'
It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you’ve got.�

- Frank Krygowski


Hunting and sport are irrelevant red herrings. An armed
populace is the best prevention of both invasion and
tyranny. Note the desperation in Hong Kong:

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ong-kong-raids

The Czechs stopped Soviet tanks by jamming water pipe into
the treads for a short while. Until a real tank division
arrived. That didn't end well.

Better free Swiss than enslaved Tibetans.

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