Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On 8/7/2019 9:41 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/7/2019 9:45 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:41:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 2:31 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
... 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.

You've got it. See, it wasn't so hard.

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?

Since you're asking my opinion, I'd say no, it's not all
right. Perhaps in the hands of a law enforcement officer or
an enlisted man. But I'd say hunters or those who fancy
themselves home defenders have no need for that. Why _would_
you realistically need that?

And before you answer with a 99th percentile example, please
let me know if you've used that capability since you've
lived where you do.

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.

It would be an assessment of practical speed of shooting.
Limiting that speed to say, five or ten rounds in a minute
would be no inconvenience to any hunter or target shooter.
In my view, the most likely reasons firing more rounds in
one minutes would be a) to kill people in a crowd, or b) to
pretend to kill people in a crowd. We don't need either of
those.

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

My idea would be: You can keep your revolver if it's fitted
with a speed limiting device.

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.

Alternately, it could require a U.S Supreme Court that
interpreted it honestly. The recent applicable decisions
blatantly pretended the first half of the relevant passage,
and overturned quite a long history of its interpretation.
It was a mistake, or a deliberate misdeed.


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?

My "accepting" any deaths on the roads is your favorite
straw man, John. It's not even an effective straw man
argument. It's a lie. Drop it.



"My idea would be: You can keep your revolver if it's fitted with a speed limiting device. "

Was that humor?

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

On 8/8/2019 1:10 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/7/2019 9:22 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/7/2019 9:57 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:57:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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 isÂÂÂ* 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
defineÂÂÂ* 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, 1645ÂÂ* 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.

*Â* 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?Â* 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.

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

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


Don't know from Thailand but Sweden has really super duper anti-hand
grenade laws.* Oh, and they even had an amnesty program to turn in spare
grenades which was not successful:

https://quillette.com/2019/06/11/its...nal-emergency/

Yep. "Twenty five people suffered cuts and bruises" and 45 shootings, up
from four or five, are "a national emergency."

Wish our "national emergencies" were at that low level!

Time to rephrase those statutes as it obviously
reflects poor grammar in the text of the laws which can solve any
problem when artfully crafted.

I'll accept whatever grammar gets our gun murder rate down to theirs.

(And why are Americans the outlier among industrialized countries?)


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/8/2019 3:49 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 06:20:04 -0000 (UTC), news18
wrote:

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 09:43:45 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct, but the manufacture of an explosive
from fertilizer and diesel fuel can be very much a home project. It is
also, I discovered when working at a major copper mine in Irian Jaya a
commonly used explosive in open pit mining and is mixed "on the spot" by
the explosive guys. And, I might add, instructions for making
fertilizer/diesel fuel bombs is all over the Internet. It is not, as
they say, rocket science.

Actually, there is a pile of recipies on the internet for the kitchen
scientist to make home made explosives. I always wonder who posted the
various instruction for nitro containing the instructions to concentrate
the mixture over an open flame.


Most of the recopies date back to the early days of the Internet when
The Anarchists Cookbook was available.

If you mean by "nitro" nitroglycerin than some information was
available way back in my grade school days as me and another fool
tried to make it with his chemistry set in the basement of his house.
We used to brew it up and pour it into cartridge cases and stopper
them and take them out to an abandoned quarry and throw them against
rocks... once in a while one would go bang :-)


Many of us made nitro triiodide in our teen years. Mostly
great fun but I know a man who lost 3 fingers of his right
hand when it blew through the side of a city bus on which he
was riding as the paste dried enough to crystallize in his
pocket.

https://science.wonderhowto.com/how-...ystals-408998/

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

On 8/8/2019 9:21 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Ralph Barone writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:
On 8/6/2019 1:34 PM, 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:
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:
wrote:
On 8/4/2019 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/4/2019 1:37 AM, John B. wrote:
-snippy snip snip-

Another theory is that phasing out leaded gasoline caused a rash of
better decision making.



POTD!

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

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 11:41:08 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 20:33:45 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 7:43:50 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct, but the manufacture of an
explosive from fertilizer and diesel fuel can be very much a home
project. It is also, I discovered when working at a major copper mine
in Irian Jaya a commonly used explosive in open pit mining and is
mixed "on the spot" by the explosive guys. And, I might add,
instructions for making fertilizer/diesel fuel bombs is all over the
Internet. It is not, as they say, rocket science.


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.

But it isn't a straw man argument. You bemoan the so called "mass
shootings" and argue for stringent gun laws while at the same time
accepting the facts that about 100 die daily on the Nation's roads.

But than, I guess the road deaths are all accidents, just
happenstance, one might say.

There is no equivalency between mass shootings and traffic accidents. Traffic accidents are an unfortunate consequence of an activity with high utility. Mass shootings are simply murder. You know that. Everybody knows that.

-- Jay Beattie.

I see. You are implying that if everyone actually complied with the
traffic code that "accidents" would remain the same as today?
--

Cheers,

John B.

I'm not implying anything. I am saying that a traffic ACCIDENT is an accident and in no way equivalent to an intentional mass shooting -- or intentional killing of any sort. Why even waste the bandwidth arguing about something so obvious?

Strange isn't that agencies such as the California Highway Patrol seem
to assign "blame" for "accidents". For example in the L.A. Country
study they reported that more than half of all bicycle-auto collisions
were the fault of the bicycle.

But perhaps it is more polite to ignore these agencies who are tasked
with trying to maintain some sort of control over what people do on
the highways and just call everything an "accident".

As an aside, it might seem that this would do a great many lawyers out
of what appears to be a substantial portion of their business as a
great many seem to be intent on proving that an "accident" really
wasn't an "accident".




Can one intentionally kill with a car? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack That, however, is not the method of choice for the 251 mass-shooters this year. https://tinyurl.com/yxlb7j4r

-- Jay Beattie.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 10:17:24 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

John B. Slocomb writes:

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:35:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 10:02 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 8/6/2019 1:34 PM, 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?


No idea but I'm sure each and every victim thought there was one too
many.

If we're doing this by numbers alone now, I'll watch for your
impassioned pleas about medical ineptitude and hospital-acquired
infection which kill more people than either car wrecks or ODs.

Also, by numbers, US homicides have decreased markedly since the 90's.
If total numbers are your thing then mass shootings should be of no
particular interest.

I challenge you to attend the next memorial service for these victims,
carrying that on a sign. I can guarantee lots of attention. Would you do
that?

Why memorial services for those shot with guns and total ignore the
several times as many killed on the roads? Or that die of hospital
acquired diseases, or those killed by illegal narcotics, or, or, or?

My point was a little finer -- why concentrate on those deliberately
killed 20 at a time, when those killed in ones or twos are really a much
bigger problem?

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


Another point that seems to be universally ignored by anti-gun
enthusiasts is the fact that the majority of "gun crimes" are not
commented with legally acquired forearms
https://extranosalley.com/what-perce...nd-legal-guns/

84 percent of those guns were stolen in a burglary; including 4
percent stolen from a relative or a friend.

6 percent of those guns were confiscated and resold by a \u201claw
enforcement officer.\u201d Legalized armed robbery, in other words.

2 percent of those guns were stolen from the police or the military.

2 percent of those guns were stolen from a parcel or delivery service.

Another "proof" that seems to be ignored is that states with high
percentage of firearm ownership often have very low percentages of gun
crimes.

Hawaii, for example has a gun ownership of 45.1% and a firearm murder
rate of 0.3/100,000.

The numbers aren't all inclusive by any means. Washington D.C. has a
gun ownership of 25.9% and a gun murder rate of 18/100,000, the
highest in the nation.

But the pro-gunners claim that guns don't kill people, people kill
people may well be a fact.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 10:21:07 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Ralph Barone writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:
AMuzi writes:

On 8/6/2019 1:34 PM, 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?


No idea but I'm sure each and every victim thought there was one too
many.

If we're doing this by numbers alone now, I'll watch for your
impassioned pleas about medical ineptitude and hospital-acquired
infection which kill more people than either car wrecks or ODs.

Also, by numbers, US homicides have decreased markedly since the 90's.
If total numbers are your thing then mass shootings should be of no
particular interest.


And just to tie two current threads together, the guys who wrote
Freakonomics made the assertion that the drop in murder (and crime rates in
general) in the US was caused by the drop in unwanted children created by
Roe vs Wade.

Nice. Crime goes down, every mayor, police chief, legislator, and
prison warden takes credit; nobody seems to really know. If crime goes
up, naturally it's those bloodthirsty illegal aliens.

Another theory is that phasing out leaded gasoline caused a rash of
better decision making.

And another point was that "amateurs" were putting "professionals" out
of business :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:23:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quite the opposite in fact,, it states that as a means of being able
to have a militia that gun ownership is not to be infringed.

And, I might add, even a careless reading of history will show that in
1774 the only "military" that the Colonies had was that of privately
owned firearms.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

--

Cheers,

John B.

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 6:28:08 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

https://science.wonderhowto.com/how-...ystals-408998/

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

The best way of getting nitro is to melt sticks of dynamite in an iron skillet over an electric stove or even an open fire if you're careful. Dynamite is a safe way to transport explosive power over bad roads, for which nitro is far too sensitive, even in bubble-wrapped Mason jars with triple rubber rings between the jar and its top. If you're mining a river with nitro, for instance to kill all the crocodiles in it, don't use wood or metal boats; if a crock or even an eel bumps the nitro in the water, a metal or wood boat will carve up your legs, but an Avon rubber liferaft will be sent up into the air and all that'll happen to you is that you'll be soaked.

Andre Jute
There's a solution for every problem