New Tactical Cycling Maneuver

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 17:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 25 September 2020 16:28:46 UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.

You mistake my position. The Second was clearly and
tersely written with a definitive and final period after
'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington
was fresh.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934.
One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument. So here we are, some 80+ years
later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread,
voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them
passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/

which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm
Sum of DEATHS
YEAR Total
2014 33,508
2015 36,132
2016 38,551
2017 39,673
2018 39,615
Total 187,479

Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths. But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as many as the Covid-19 is killing each day.

Any two years on that list equals more firearm deaths than the Vietnam Conflict had in total.

Cheers

I don't know whether you consider it significant or not but in most
years suicides account for more then half of the firearm deaths.
In 2017, for example, some 23,854 committed suicide with a firearm.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:26:25 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 7:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 25 September 2020 16:28:46 UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.

You mistake my position. The Second was clearly and
tersely written with a definitive and final period after
'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington
was fresh.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934.
One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument. So here we are, some 80+ years
later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread,
voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them
passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/

which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm
Sum of DEATHS
YEAR Total
2014 33,508
2015 36,132
2016 38,551
2017 39,673
2018 39,615
Total 187,479

Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths. But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as many as the Covid-19 is killing each day.

Any two years on that list equals more firearm deaths than the Vietnam Conflict had in total.


sorta kinda but not really.

Hint: Subtract the suicide and negligent discharges from
firearms deaths.

Also the horrific 58,000 number of US deaths supporting ARVN
includes accident disease and misadventure above the 47,400
combat deaths. Bad enough, but accuracy ought to matter.

It might also be noted that this was for a twenty year period, from
1955 til 1975.


One more thing about death comparisons- since auto deaths
include both vehicles you might pause to note 1,100,000 NVA
and VC, and that after the earlier French Indochina bloodbath.

ref: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

I suspect that the NVA/VC numbers should be taken with "a grain of
salt" as I remember some reporter keeping count of "enemy Killed"
figures by Saigon and announcing that the U.S. had killed more then
the total population of Vietnam :-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 19:50:54 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 3:37 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 5:25:14 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 5:53 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 12:39:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 12:03 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:37 AM, Tosspot wrote:
On 24/09/2020 15.59, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/



Why are the cops riding bikes at night with no lights? Is
that not illegal?



Probably. Ring 911 to ask for more police?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...lling-911.html

Similar to that incident: One friend of mine lives on a lot of wooded
rural acreage. He has "No Hunting" signs posted.

He got wind of a hunter on his property and walked out to confront the
guy. As he told me, the hunter's attitude was threatening. He pointed
his gun at my friend and asked "What are you going to do about it?"

My friend faced him down, saying something like "You're not going to
shoot me." But I think that takes extraordinary courage. I'd certainly
have called the cops.

And about the "Defund" movement: ISTM that many, if not most, of those
saying that are not saying police forces should be abolished, or that
criminals should be given free rein (although I suppose there are
radical libertarians). They are instead proposing that other agencies
handle encounters that don't require an armed man in uniform.

As to radical libertarians: I suppose people who frequently say "laws
don't work, legalize everything" must be very much in favor of
abolishing police forces. I'm not one of those people.

Are there "other agencies". I believe that the Military is
specifically forbidden to act as police in U.S. territories.

Perhaps a new agency could be formed, "The Agency of Armed Force",
(TAOAF). But would that be a State or Federal force?

Not all that simple. You're right about the formal armed
forces but the prior administration set up armed security
branches in every Department:

This from 2012:
https://www.theblaze.com/contributio...h-armed-agents

and 2016:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/prett...s-hank-berrien

those are from a quick web search. It's a perplexing trend
to those who wonder why the Education Department needs an
assault team.

To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

Every one of these armed agents is required to qualify at a range once a year. And that qualification means hitting a 50 foot target with a hand held gun in rapid fire situations. So they are pretty damned good with a handgun. I was never much one with a handgun other than an automatic, but with a rifle you should have seen me there with a Federal Agent. It was one of those ranges where at 100 feet to 100 yards, targets would pop out and you had to make sure you only hit qualified targets Someone with a weapon that wasn't a uniformed cop) and not the picture of the little old lady or the man with a walker. I hit bullseye on 100% of those and the Federal Agent gave up after he couldn't even hit the long targets before a new one appeared. That was 3 or 4 years ago.


With you broad wisdom and experience in the area, please
enlighten me. Why does the Education Department need
assault squads? Extra points for the Weather Service.

Well, Good Lord, Man! The FBI got them, the CIA got them, and our
annual budget needs a boost!
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 5:30:54 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 3:28 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 9:54:58 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/24/2020 11:00 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Thursday, September 24, 2020 at 8:37:23 AM UTC-7, Tosspot wrote:
On 24/09/2020 15.59, AMuzi wrote:
https://nypost.com/2020/09/24/a-seat...s-head-during/

Why are the cops riding bikes at night with no lights? Is that not
illegal?
Why are you unaware that police are not subject to traffic regulations? Are you supposing that the police are going to pursue someone while staying within the speed limit?

Technically they can run stop signs/stop lights and blow
speed limits, go wrong-way and so on only when the red
lights are rolling.

(or blue lights or whatever in your area)

Maybe in your state Andrew but not in most. It is pretty difficult to sneak up on criminals when your lights and siren are on.


California Statues section 21055:

https://law.justia.com/codes/califor...050-21070.html

When sneaking up on people a police car has to obey the
other traffic statutes. Mr Beattie, in his capacity as an
actual California ambulance operator, told you this already.

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

There is some slop in the statute since you only need to run the siren "as may be reasonably necessary." That's why I was ****ed off for getting a ticket, but my recollection is a little foggy, and I may have failed to switch on the solid red, which was actually on a different switch than the beacons. The solid red is the key. Whatever the deal, nobody died, and the ticket was petty.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:07:48 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 6:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 12:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.


You mistake my position.

Perhaps, then, you should explain more clearly why you
linked a photo of a Nazi officer murdering captives.

The Second was clearly and tersely written with a
definitive and final period after 'shall not be infringed'
by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh.

I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment has never been
interpreted as complete and total license to own any and all
firearms - at least, not by anyone with at least two
functioning brain cells. The current radical interpretation
is rather new and is at odds with many decades of
interpretation and practice. It's even at odds with the
NRA's historic positions. It's a product of a campaign to
line the pockets of LaPierre and others like him.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since
1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument.

Please. The courts saw through that argument long ago. They
are not interested for very sound reasons.

So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where
firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing.
Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day nicely
oiled and cased without incident.

My guess is the majority of guns in the U.S. pass multiple
years while stored away. In other words, they are not
necessary, except to comfort certain paranoid individuals.

In particular, it's essentially never necessary to have a
gun capable of firing more than about five rounds in one
minute. Given that rapid fire guns have the proven detriment
of facilitating horrible illegal behavior, the balance of
benefits vs. detriments is heavily against them.

(BTW, only a tiny fraction of red light running causes
fatalities. That's not justification for allowing red light
running.)


Image is not a National Socialist but rather NKVD
(International Socialist) for those who see any difference
whatsoever among the sorry lot of socialists all together.

Five rounds per minute? WTF?
My .38 Police Special does all five in about 3 to 4 seconds
when actually concentrating on a target. Guys who are good
at that sort of thing use 8-shot revolvers and the record is
one second.

Back when I was a competition pistol shooter I used to practice on a
range where the State Police also practiced and I used to,watch then
shooting the "Practical Police Course" that included 10 rounds at 10
feet, or some such distance. 5 rounds, reload and 5 more in 10
seconds... with a six shot revolver and loose ammunition :-)


I've never been to a two-way range, and I hope never to
experience that, but many things can transpire in a very
long full sixty second minute. Your off-the-top-of-the-head
'standard' is idiotic.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 9/25/2020 10:06 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:26:25 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 7:30 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Friday, 25 September 2020 16:28:46 UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.

You mistake my position. The Second was clearly and
tersely written with a definitive and final period after
'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington
was fresh.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934.
One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument. So here we are, some 80+ years
later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread,
voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them
passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/

which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm
Sum of DEATHS
YEAR Total
2014 33,508
2015 36,132
2016 38,551
2017 39,673
2018 39,615
Total 187,479

Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths. But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as many as the Covid-19 is killing each day.

Any two years on that list equals more firearm deaths than the Vietnam Conflict had in total.


sorta kinda but not really.

Hint: Subtract the suicide and negligent discharges from
firearms deaths.

Also the horrific 58,000 number of US deaths supporting ARVN
includes accident disease and misadventure above the 47,400
combat deaths. Bad enough, but accuracy ought to matter.

It might also be noted that this was for a twenty year period, from
1955 til 1975.


One more thing about death comparisons- since auto deaths
include both vehicles you might pause to note 1,100,000 NVA
and VC, and that after the earlier French Indochina bloodbath.

ref: http://www.rjsmith.com/kia_tbl.html

I suspect that the NVA/VC numbers should be taken with "a grain of
salt" as I remember some reporter keeping count of "enemy Killed"
figures by Saigon and announcing that the U.S. had killed more then
the total population of Vietnam :-)


Check the sources in that link it's pretty well documented.

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

On 9/25/2020 9:07 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 6:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 12:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.


You mistake my position.

Perhaps, then, you should explain more clearly why you
linked a photo of a Nazi officer murdering captives.

The Second was clearly and tersely written with a
definitive and final period after 'shall not be infringed'
by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh.

I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment has never been
interpreted as complete and total license to own any and all
firearms - at least, not by anyone with at least two
functioning brain cells. The current radical interpretation
is rather new and is at odds with many decades of
interpretation and practice. It's even at odds with the
NRA's historic positions. It's a product of a campaign to
line the pockets of LaPierre and others like him.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since
1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument.

Please. The courts saw through that argument long ago. They
are not interested for very sound reasons.

So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where
firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing.
Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day nicely
oiled and cased without incident.

My guess is the majority of guns in the U.S. pass multiple
years while stored away. In other words, they are not
necessary, except to comfort certain paranoid individuals.

In particular, it's essentially never necessary to have a
gun capable of firing more than about five rounds in one
minute. Given that rapid fire guns have the proven detriment
of facilitating horrible illegal behavior, the balance of
benefits vs. detriments is heavily against them.

(BTW, only a tiny fraction of red light running causes
fatalities. That's not justification for allowing red light
running.)


Image is not a National Socialist but rather NKVD (International
Socialist) for those who see any difference whatsoever among the sorry
lot of socialists all together.

Five rounds per minute? WTF?
My .38 Police Special does all five in about 3 to 4 seconds when
actually concentrating on a target.Â* Guys who are good at that sort of
thing use 8-shot revolvers and the record is one second.

I've never been to a two-way range, and I hope never to experience that,
but many things can transpire in a very long full sixty second minute.
Your off-the-top-of-the-head 'standard' is idiotic.

I can tell you don't like my standard. But your post contains no real
rebuttal, except for what Jim Jeffries notes from about 1:45 to 2:00 in
this clip: https://youtu.be/0rR9IaXH1M0?t=102

I've never claimed that lots of guns can shoot more than five rounds in
a minute. I know they can. I've shot several myself.

Instead I'm saying (outside of military combat, of course) that
capability isn't needed. It's detriments to society far outweigh it's
benefits.

We rode by a shooting range just a few days ago. Among the normal
reports of normal target practice we could hear one guy's occasional
"pop pop pop pop pop." What do you suppose he was pretending?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/25/2020 11:15 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 20:07:48 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 9/25/2020 6:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/25/2020 12:00 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.


You mistake my position.

Perhaps, then, you should explain more clearly why you
linked a photo of a Nazi officer murdering captives.

The Second was clearly and tersely written with a
definitive and final period after 'shall not be infringed'
by men whose memory of Lexington was fresh.

I think it's obvious that the 2nd amendment has never been
interpreted as complete and total license to own any and all
firearms - at least, not by anyone with at least two
functioning brain cells. The current radical interpretation
is rather new and is at odds with many decades of
interpretation and practice. It's even at odds with the
NRA's historic positions. It's a product of a campaign to
line the pockets of LaPierre and others like him.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since
1934. One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument.

Please. The courts saw through that argument long ago. They
are not interested for very sound reasons.

So here we are, some 80+ years later in a nation where
firearm ownership is widespread, voluminous and growing.
Yesterday, virtually all of them passed another day nicely
oiled and cased without incident.

My guess is the majority of guns in the U.S. pass multiple
years while stored away. In other words, they are not
necessary, except to comfort certain paranoid individuals.

In particular, it's essentially never necessary to have a
gun capable of firing more than about five rounds in one
minute. Given that rapid fire guns have the proven detriment
of facilitating horrible illegal behavior, the balance of
benefits vs. detriments is heavily against them.

(BTW, only a tiny fraction of red light running causes
fatalities. That's not justification for allowing red light
running.)


Image is not a National Socialist but rather NKVD
(International Socialist) for those who see any difference
whatsoever among the sorry lot of socialists all together.

Five rounds per minute? WTF?
My .38 Police Special does all five in about 3 to 4 seconds
when actually concentrating on a target. Guys who are good
at that sort of thing use 8-shot revolvers and the record is
one second.

Back when I was a competition pistol shooter I used to practice on a
range where the State Police also practiced and I used to,watch then
shooting the "Practical Police Course" that included 10 rounds at 10
feet, or some such distance. 5 rounds, reload and 5 more in 10
seconds... with a six shot revolver and loose ammunition :-)

I'm curious how much time the typical British police have to put into
that kind of drill.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/25/2020 8:25 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 9/24/2020 9:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:

To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.


Meanwhile, just a few days ago and about three miles away, some dude
barged into a house in a very quiet neighborhood at 2 AM and blasted
away, shooting four adults and one four-year-old boy. The boy died in
his mother's arms.

Oddly, no "good guy with a gun" prevented the murder.

I suggest that the question is "Why". I did read that the police,
"stressed that it was not a random act of violence but rather a
targeted attack."

And I later read that "A suspect connected to a shooting that killed a
4-year-old Ohio boy and wounded four adults, including the boy's
mother, was arrested Monday night, authorities told Fox News.
and
Kimonie Bryant, 24, surrendered to the U.S. Marshals Service around 8
p.m., Struthers police Chief Tim Roddy said.


I do find it odd that one seldom hears calls for edged weapons control
or ban:

https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/2020092...-hebdo-offices


Follow the UK news and you'll see lots of calls for knife control.

Here's a story on the CoE calling for a ban on pointy assault knives:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...rn-world-says/

I gather that carrying a folding knife with a locking blade is
considered a serious offense in Blighty, sort of like a "gravity knife"
in NYC:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/31/n...knife-law.html

Seems that particular misbegotten law has been repealed, sometimes there
is progress.

Rest assured that if knives are banned the powers that be will move on
to rocks and sharp sticks.

Let's compare knives vs. fast acting firearms.

There's this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States

vs. this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catego..._United_States

The totals seem to be a bit different.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 9/25/2020 10:52 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 17:30:57 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, 25 September 2020 16:28:46 UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, September 25, 2020 at 11:00:04 AM UTC-5, AMuzi wrote:
On 9/25/2020 9:59 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 9/24/2020 10:50 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 24 Sep 2020 21:13:26 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 9/24/2020 8:25 PM, AMuzi wrote:
To the larger issue:
http://www.yellowjersey.org/photosfromthepast/nkvd.jpg

... as if that's a daily occurrence in all other
prosperous westernized
countries that have reasonable gun control?

Given that the photo shows an official of some sort
executing two
individual I don't see that it involves gun control at
all. Unless, of
course, you don't think that officials should be armed.

I think Andrew's implication is that if (say) America
introduces universal background checks and restricts the
purchase of rapid fire assault-style weapons, that police
will begin executing civilians on the streets.

IOW, the implausible connection to gun control was not mine.

You mistake my position. The Second was clearly and
tersely written with a definitive and final period after
'shall not be infringed' by men whose memory of Lexington
was fresh.

Automatic weapons have been severely restricted since 1934.
One might argue that the National Firearms Act is an
unconstitutional abridgement but the courts are not
interested in that argument. So here we are, some 80+ years
later in a nation where firearm ownership is widespread,
voluminous and growing. Yesterday, virtually all of them
passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident.

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun...s-by-state/13/

which comes to just under 5 million firearms in Ohio.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

In the USA firearms kill about 100 people per day. Does that meet your "virtually all of them passed another day nicely oiled and cased without incident." criteria? I guess the number of people dying by firearms is only one tenth the number dying by Covid-19 each day. So its irrelevant. Trump and the Republicans think Covid-19 is a hoax and is going to go away very soon, so one tenth as many dying by firearms each day is surely immaterial.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/s...ty/firearm.htm
Sum of DEATHS
YEAR Total
2014 33,508
2015 36,132
2016 38,551
2017 39,673
2018 39,615
Total 187,479

Funny thing is about 3000 fewer people died in the USA from vehicle accidents each year. I'd have guessed vehicle deaths were much higher than firearm deaths. But NO. Americans love to shoot people to death! Even more than they like to run them over. Of course keep in mind all these deaths by guns and cars are one tenth as many as the Covid-19 is killing each day.

Any two years on that list equals more firearm deaths than the Vietnam Conflict had in total.

Cheers

I don't know whether you consider it significant or not but in most
years suicides account for more then half of the firearm deaths.
In 2017, for example, some 23,854 committed suicide with a firearm.

If you had a family member who committed suicide by firearm, you might
not write those deaths off quite so cavalierly.


--
- Frank Krygowski