Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On 8/7/2019 9:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:28:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 9:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
rOn Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 7:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:34:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 2:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/6/2019 12:46 PM, 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, 1645Â 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.


Machete murders were once big news. Now we have a
term for that, "Tuesday":

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...17&t=h_&ia=web


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...8&t=h_&ia=news


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...19&t=h_&ia=web


Readers of delicate countenance should not click
"images" on the search
menu.

Anyone know the annual count of U.S. machete killings?

A nice end run around the facts. Rather a "Tom" effort.

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

But what facts do you think I'm avoiding? It seems to
be a fact that
guns are used in far, far more murders than knives or
machetes. (Feel
free to correct me if you do find that machete number.)
What other facts
are you using?

Certainly, and I believe that I made that point in
another post. Yes,
in the U.S. guns are used in many more homicides that
machetes.

Thank you. Maybe you'll stop the machete talk now?

But, as I pointed out, the actual number of deaths in
firearm
homicides is far lower than in auto crashes or even
illegal drug
deaths, so I ask again, is it the number of deaths that
upsets you? Or
is it the fact the deaths are carried out with those
horrible firearms
and concerns you.

From your comments to date it certainly appears that
it is the
firearms that concerns you, or at least I don't see your
posts
descrying the carnage on the highways or even due to
illegal use of
drugs. Which, again as I commented on, are far, far
greater then
firearm deaths.

I just posted a reply to Andrew that attempted to explain
people's
attitudes toward deaths from various causes. Read it. But
as I said,
death by murder has always raised outrage. That's part of
human nature.
Deal with it.

I see. is not the fact that people are killed that is
important but
rather the method that caused their death. Killing someone
with a ton
and a half automobile is "perfectly normal" ...

That's a deliberate and dishonest fabrication. Nobody has
said that but you. If you have to sink to such a tactic,
your position is lost.



Did you peruse the links I post regularly to the Chicago
homicide count? Death in the street by firearm is all day
every day and yet no outcry, no change.

https://maggionews.com/
http://heyjackass.com/

Just keeping the tally engages several websites full time.
For Chicago, that's like Elizabeth Warren's #1 fan Mr Betts
in Dayton Ohio every week (except with more wounded).

But hey nothing to see here, move along.

I also mentioned in years past that Chicago has some of the
most restrictive draconian weapons ordinances in a State
with highly restrictive statutes, so much so that The US
Supreme Court slapped them down [Otis McDonald, plaintiff]
and yet they defied the Court for years after.

If merely writing laws could change behavior...

https://www.alibris.com/Three-Feloni...228?matches=23

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

On 8/7/2019 1:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/7/2019 9:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:28:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 9:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
rOn Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 7:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:34:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 2:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/6/2019 12:46 PM, 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 isÂÂ* 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
defineÂÂ* 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, 1645Â* 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.


Machete murders were once big news. Now we have a
term for that, "Tuesday":

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...17&t=h_&ia=web


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...8&t=h_&ia=news


https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...19&t=h_&ia=web


Readers of delicate countenance should not click
"images" on the search
menu.

Anyone know the annual count of U.S. machete killings?

A nice end run around the facts. Rather a "Tom" effort.

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

But what facts do you think I'm avoiding? It seems to
be a fact that
guns are used in far, far more murders than knives or
machetes. (Feel
free to correct me if you do find that machete number.)
What other facts
are you using?

Certainly, and I believe that I made that point in
another post. Yes,
in the U.S. guns are used in many more homicides that
machetes.

Thank you. Maybe you'll stop the machete talk now?

But, as I pointed out, the actual number of deaths in
firearm
homicides is far lower than in auto crashes or even
illegal drug
deaths, so I ask again, is it the number of deaths that
upsets you? Or
is it the fact the deaths are carried out with those
horrible firearms
and concerns you.

* From your comments to date it certainly appears that
it is the
firearms that concerns you, or at least I don't see your
posts
descrying the carnage on the highways or even due to
illegal use of
drugs. Which, again as I commented on, are far, far
greater then
firearm deaths.

I just posted a reply to Andrew that attempted to explain
people's
attitudes toward deaths from various causes. Read it. But
as I said,
death by murder has always raised outrage. That's part of
human nature.
Deal with it.

I see. is not the fact that people are killed that is
important but
rather the method that caused their death. Killing someone
with a ton
and a half automobile is "perfectly normal" ...

That's a deliberate and dishonest fabrication. Nobody has
said that but you. If you have to sink to such a tactic,
your position is lost.



Did you peruse the links I post regularly to the Chicago homicide
count?* Death in the street by firearm is all day every day and yet no
outcry, no change.

https://maggionews.com/
http://heyjackass.com/

Just keeping the tally engages several websites full time. For Chicago,
that's like Elizabeth Warren's #1 fan Mr Betts in Dayton Ohio every week
(except with more wounded).

But hey nothing to see here, move along.

I also mentioned in years past that Chicago has some of the most
restrictive draconian weapons ordinances in a State with highly
restrictive statutes, so much so that The US Supreme Court slapped them
down [Otis McDonald, plaintiff] and yet they defied the Court for years
after.

If merely writing laws could change behavior...

https://www.alibris.com/Three-Feloni...228?matches=23

The obvious problem with city-wide firearm laws is that cities stopped
being surrounded with gated walls very long ago. When surrounding areas
(like Indiana in this case) have a Wild West philosophy (anyone who can
breathe can practice open carry) there's not much way of reducing the
number of guns a few miles away.

And I know your recurring claim that laws don't change anything. I'm
sorry, but it's false. Laws are imperfect and enforcement can never be
100%. Some laws are ineffective and some are just mistakes. But that
doesn't justify the alternative, which is total anarchy, no laws at all.

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.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/7/2019 1:57 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/7/2019 1:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/7/2019 9:25 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:28:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 9:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
rOn Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 7:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:34:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 2:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/6/2019 12:46 PM, 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, 1645Â 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.


Machete murders were once big news. Now we have a
term for that, "Tuesday":

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...17&t=h_&ia=web



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...8&t=h_&ia=news



https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...19&t=h_&ia=web



Readers of delicate countenance should not click
"images" on the search
menu.

Anyone know the annual count of U.S. machete killings?

A nice end run around the facts. Rather a "Tom" effort.

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

But what facts do you think I'm avoiding? It seems to
be a fact that
guns are used in far, far more murders than knives or
machetes. (Feel
free to correct me if you do find that machete number.)
What other facts
are you using?

Certainly, and I believe that I made that point in
another post. Yes,
in the U.S. guns are used in many more homicides that
machetes.

Thank you. Maybe you'll stop the machete talk now?

But, as I pointed out, the actual number of deaths in
firearm
homicides is far lower than in auto crashes or even
illegal drug
deaths, so I ask again, is it the number of deaths that
upsets you? Or
is it the fact the deaths are carried out with those
horrible firearms
and concerns you.

From your comments to date it certainly appears that
it is the
firearms that concerns you, or at least I don't see your
posts
descrying the carnage on the highways or even due to
illegal use of
drugs. Which, again as I commented on, are far, far
greater then
firearm deaths.

I just posted a reply to Andrew that attempted to explain
people's
attitudes toward deaths from various causes. Read it. But
as I said,
death by murder has always raised outrage. That's part of
human nature.
Deal with it.

I see. is not the fact that people are killed that is
important but
rather the method that caused their death. Killing someone
with a ton
and a half automobile is "perfectly normal" ...

That's a deliberate and dishonest fabrication. Nobody has
said that but you. If you have to sink to such a tactic,
your position is lost.



Did you peruse the links I post regularly to the Chicago
homicide count? Death in the street by firearm is all day
every day and yet no outcry, no change.

https://maggionews.com/
http://heyjackass.com/

Just keeping the tally engages several websites full time.
For Chicago, that's like Elizabeth Warren's #1 fan Mr
Betts in Dayton Ohio every week (except with more wounded).

But hey nothing to see here, move along.

I also mentioned in years past that Chicago has some of
the most restrictive draconian weapons ordinances in a
State with highly restrictive statutes, so much so that
The US Supreme Court slapped them down [Otis McDonald,
plaintiff] and yet they defied the Court for years after.

If merely writing laws could change behavior...

https://www.alibris.com/Three-Feloni...228?matches=23


The obvious problem with city-wide firearm laws is that
cities stopped being surrounded with gated walls very long
ago. When surrounding areas (like Indiana in this case) have
a Wild West philosophy (anyone who can breathe can practice
open carry) there's not much way of reducing the number of
guns a few miles away.

And I know your recurring claim that laws don't change
anything. I'm sorry, but it's false. Laws are imperfect and
enforcement can never be 100%. Some laws are ineffective and
some are just mistakes. But that doesn't justify the
alternative, which is total anarchy, no laws at all.

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.


Well, when you're not busy look at the situation in Mexico
regarding firearms, regulation and actual incidence. If you
think USAians (a notoriously defiant bunch overall) will
comply any differently than with the heroin ban, think
again. For the interested reader, States and localities
with more restrictive firearms regulation experience greater
firearm mayhem.

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

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 8:39:46 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

Well, when you're not busy look at the situation in Mexico
regarding firearms, regulation and actual incidence. If you
think USAians (a notoriously defiant bunch overall) will
comply any differently than with the heroin ban, think
again. For the interested reader, States and localities
with more restrictive firearms regulation experience greater
firearm mayhem.

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

Leaving aside your remark about Mexico, which is a poor analogue for orderly countries without its corruption and public incompetence...

You've put your finger on the firearms problem in the States. I hear natives of orderly European countries say, "Well, we have no guns, very strict licensing of hunting firearms, unarmed police, and as a result one-thousandth of the per capita murder rate of the Americans. All they have to do is to grow the balls to take away all those guns, and hey presto, a safe society.." When I say, "Have you considered the difficulties of a constitutionally bolshie populace empowered by centuries of moralising about the rights to form an armed militia (an outlook which incidentally the Swiss also share, without the American gun crime), a right to carry arms embedded in the founding documents, the fact that there are more guns at large than people, the statistical certainty that all these guns will never be confiscated, and even if hypothetically they can be, the cost in lives in the interim after all the law-abiding folk have given up their firearms and the only firearms are in the hands of criminals?" -- man, they look at me blankly, as if I'm some freak in favour of guns in the hands of the public, which I'm not: I'm just aware that the US has a huge problem because of the number of firearms already in circulation, an ab initio reality with consequences aggravated by the other ingrained factors I listed above. But it's the old, old problem of intellectuals, who're mostly on the Left*, disdaining the Americans as uncouth, even as barbarians; sometimes I think I must be the last European intellectual who actually likes America and Americans.

I feel for the pol put in charge of gun control in the States -- it's a sure career-killer, though perhaps Mr Trump could get away with it in his second term, but I can't think of anyone else who would survive the resulting furore. Anyway, I don't think even President Trump will go the whole way because in his now near-inevitable second term he'll be thinking of his posterity and will sense that an effective gun-controller will be abused as an anti-constitutional statist for centuries after he's dead and buried, and that incident alone will supersede all the good he did during his administration. In addition, since the deed will have to be done by presidential decree because there won't be a majority of votes for it even if the vote is a bipartisan issue, the next president will almost certainly reverse the measure(s) by a single signature, because it will be what he campaigned on. The nation will for a generation or more be so bitterly polarised that the present nastiness will seem like a softball friendly at the office picnic.

Practically, what should be a matter of principle either way (for or against), has over time become a near-insoluble problem.

Andre Jute
* But not only the gauche Left (who too often call themselves Democrats), pinkos, commies and fellow travellers. I once asked Enoch Powell, a considerable poet and as a politician Mr Conservative himself, winding down after an interview about the use of the language (he spoke what everyone considered the best English in his generation, and the ones before and after), why, since the Americans in the original 13 Colonies preserved the English he thought purest (Plymouth, 16/17thC), he then disdains Americans; he told me to think about President Eisenhower (it's also important to know that Powell was a distinguished soldier, rising in WW!! from private to brigadier) *for electoral gain* betraying the British, French and Israeli nations during the Suez Crisis of 1956.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:25:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:28:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 9:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
rOn Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 7:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:34:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 2:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/6/2019 12:46 PM, 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 isÂ* 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
defineÂ* 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.


Machete murders were once big news. Now we have a term for that, "Tuesday":

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...17&t=h_&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...8&t=h_&ia=news

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...19&t=h_&ia=web

Readers of delicate countenance should not click "images" on the search
menu.

Anyone know the annual count of U.S. machete killings?

A nice end run around the facts. Rather a "Tom" effort.

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

But what facts do you think I'm avoiding? It seems to be a fact that
guns are used in far, far more murders than knives or machetes. (Feel
free to correct me if you do find that machete number.) What other facts
are you using?

Certainly, and I believe that I made that point in another post. Yes,
in the U.S. guns are used in many more homicides that machetes.

Thank you. Maybe you'll stop the machete talk now?

But, as I pointed out, the actual number of deaths in firearm
homicides is far lower than in auto crashes or even illegal drug
deaths, so I ask again, is it the number of deaths that upsets you? Or
is it the fact the deaths are carried out with those horrible firearms
and concerns you.

From your comments to date it certainly appears that it is the
firearms that concerns you, or at least I don't see your posts
descrying the carnage on the highways or even due to illegal use of
drugs. Which, again as I commented on, are far, far greater then
firearm deaths.

I just posted a reply to Andrew that attempted to explain people's
attitudes toward deaths from various causes. Read it. But as I said,
death by murder has always raised outrage. That's part of human nature.
Deal with it.

I see. is not the fact that people are killed that is important but
rather the method that caused their death. Killing someone with a ton
and a half automobile is "perfectly normal" ...

That's a deliberate and dishonest fabrication. Nobody has said that but
you. If you have to sink to such a tactic, your position is lost.

Nice try, but I have been pointing out all along that you react with
horror to anyone being shot but at the same time totally ignore much
greater losses of life if no gun is used.

A very selective attitude wouldn't you say?

--

Cheers,

John B.

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.

On 8/7/2019 3:39 PM, AMuzi wrote:
For the interested reader, States and
localities with more restrictive firearms regulation experience greater
firearm mayhem.

Others disagree.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/

https://www.scarymommy.com/strict-gu...n-death-rates/

https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

https://www.newsweek.com/us-states-s...otings-1353508

https://www.vox.com/2019/3/8/1825462...nce-laws-study

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/7/2019 8:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:25:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 1:08 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:28:25 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 9:02 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
rOn Tue, 6 Aug 2019 20:11:03 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 7:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:34:04 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 2:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/6/2019 12:46 PM, 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 isÂÂ* 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
defineÂÂ* 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, 1645Â* 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.


Machete murders were once big news. Now we have a term for that, "Tuesday":

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...17&t=h_&ia=web

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...8&t=h_&ia=news

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=machete+mu...19&t=h_&ia=web

Readers of delicate countenance should not click "images" on the search
menu.

Anyone know the annual count of U.S. machete killings?

A nice end run around the facts. Rather a "Tom" effort.

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

But what facts do you think I'm avoiding? It seems to be a fact that
guns are used in far, far more murders than knives or machetes. (Feel
free to correct me if you do find that machete number.) What other facts
are you using?

Certainly, and I believe that I made that point in another post. Yes,
in the U.S. guns are used in many more homicides that machetes.

Thank you. Maybe you'll stop the machete talk now?

But, as I pointed out, the actual number of deaths in firearm
homicides is far lower than in auto crashes or even illegal drug
deaths, so I ask again, is it the number of deaths that upsets you? Or
is it the fact the deaths are carried out with those horrible firearms
and concerns you.

From your comments to date it certainly appears that it is the
firearms that concerns you, or at least I don't see your posts
descrying the carnage on the highways or even due to illegal use of
drugs. Which, again as I commented on, are far, far greater then
firearm deaths.

I just posted a reply to Andrew that attempted to explain people's
attitudes toward deaths from various causes. Read it. But as I said,
death by murder has always raised outrage. That's part of human nature.
Deal with it.

I see. is not the fact that people are killed that is important but
rather the method that caused their death. Killing someone with a ton
and a half automobile is "perfectly normal" ...

That's a deliberate and dishonest fabrication. Nobody has said that but
you. If you have to sink to such a tactic, your position is lost.

Nice try, but I have been pointing out all along that you react with
horror to anyone being shot but at the same time totally ignore much
greater losses of life if no gun is used.

And that is perfectly false. You get no points. Thanks for trying.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/7/2019 8:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:28:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


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..

You're really not very knowledgeable on these issues, John.

"Under federal explosives law, it is illegal to engage in the business
of manufacturing explosives without a license; to improperly store
explosives; to sell or distribute explosives to any person who does not
hold an ATF license or permit." You may want to read this information:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives
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?

No, and I didn't say that. Again, when someone sinks exclusively into
straw man arguments, they must have no really logical argument remaining.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:41:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 2:31 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:16:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


As I've said befo I shoot on occasion. I'm not bad at it, and it's
kind of fun. But I see no need for a civilian to own a gun that can fire
off more than a few rounds in one minute. (John got very confused on
this, measuring rate of fire over a time period of two seconds or
something - which was clearly not what I had said.)

Actually I spent several posts trying to educate you that rounds per
time period is not a valid measurement, for any practical purpose,
that is. For example: Jerry Miculek sat a record in 1999 of 8 rounds
fired from a revolver in 1 second, which translate to a firing rate of
480 rounds per minute. An AK-47 (an assualt rifle) has a firing rate
of ~600 RPM.

And no it wasn't what you said, but how else do you measure any sort
of speed of fireing in order to make a rule?

Hmm. Wow, that IS difficult. Because there's no possible way any
government official could take a sample firearm to a shooting range,
fill it and/or its magazine with its maximum round capacity, start a
stopwatch and see how many rounds could be fired in a minute. That would
be so darned complex!

Ah, O.K. So it is what is usually called "effective rate of fire" or
the number of rounds that can be fired in a specific length of time.

But I used to shoot with a State Police Sergeant who used to shoot the
Practical Police Course (PPC) now called something different and he
could, with a S&W 6 shot revolver, fire 5 rounds, reload and fire 5
more in 10 seconds or less. The 5 rounds was simply because 10 rounds
was one target's worth.

If you extend that a little and disregard the need for aimed shots one
could probably easily fire 12 rounds in 10 seconds, or less, or about
72 rounds in one minute.

So is a firearm that can be fired 72 rounds a minute all right?

The point that I am trying to make is your simple take the gun to the
range and shoot it is over simplistic and hardly a reasonable
assessment of firepower.

I see no justification for a gun that can fire a dozen rounds in five

How about 8 rounds in one second? Out of a commerically made S&W
revolver?

Sheesh, an elementary mathematical logic fail! Obviously, John, I see no
justification for that.

But Frank that is a record, fired with a standard S&W revolver. Are we
to ban all revolvers?

Frank, any semi-automatic weapon can be modified to fire fully
automatic until the magazine is empty. and it isn't rocket science.

I know that. I see no justification for doing it or permitting it. What
nut case wants to play with fully automatic guns? Why didn't they grow
out of that before they were 18?

Using the 1911 Colt as an example, you don't have to actually file the
interrupter, it will wear away in use :-)

In short, while I do hear what you say, gun laws made based on your
posts would be ludicrase.

I understand you don't like it. But I think a literal "rounds in one
minute" limit is easy to understand, easy to justify and not technically
hard to conform to.

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.

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.

But, to repeat my previous arguments, why do you worry so much about
22 people getting shot, occasionally, when you complacently accept
~100 daily deaths on the roads?

Or to put it another way, in 2018 there were 323 "mass shootings" in
which 387 people lost their lives. HORRORS! BAN GUNS! TERRIBLE,
TERRIBLE!

And, 36,750 died in Motor Vehicle Deaths in 2018....

--

Cheers,

John B.