Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

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.

--

Cheers,

John B.

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" while killing someone with
a firearm is a terrible, terrible thing.

I'm sorry but I can't envisage such a (to me) immoral viewpoint. To my
mind if someone is killed they are dead and the method of killing is
immaterial. They are dead.

Or does one weep more for firearm deaths than auto deaths?



--

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 20:04:25 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/6/2019 7:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2019 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
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.

The ultimate step in that line of argument would be this:

"Murderers should not be prosecuted, because everyone is
going to die anyway."



You could say that. I wouldn't.

If I had any faith in the prosecutors getting the right guy
more often than not I'd favor a swift and sure death penalty
for murder. That's the critical factor which keeps me from
that position.

They seem to be as effective there as running the MVD or any
other public gerbil-wheel program.

Speaking of banning 'weapons of war'[1] less than 5% of
bump-stock owners complied with the turn-in orders. Great
law, that. But hey let's write more laws! Maybe double-dog
really prohibit felon in possession? That would be big news
to prosecutors since they hardly ever charge it now.

I keep telling y'll, you gotta have some penalties. You just can't
keep making them laws.

Singapore, for example, has the lowest "drug problem" in the world.
Because if you are caught with drugs they hang you. No grand jury, no
appeals. they catch you with drugs they hang you.

As Sam Johnson said, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to
be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."


[1]Silly gadget that no firearm owner of my acquaintance
took seriously or ever considered buying. It was not ruled
on at all in the GWB administration, OK'd for unregulated
sale by BHO's ATF and only recently banned under DJT. Only
one significant event (LasVegas nutcase) was tied to them.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:16:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/6/2019 9:18 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/6/2019 7:46 PM, 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
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.

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 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



Don't be so extreme, Frank.

Any semiautomatic rifle, such as my AR, shoots exactly as fast as my .38
Police Special revolver- one pull= one round.

There's no such animal as the fabled 'assault rifle'.

Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...ssault%20rifle

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle

https://nationalinterest.org/tag/assault-rifle

Many people seem to disagree with you. (Mind you, I haven't used the
phrase "assault rifle" in this discussion.)

Hell, people die
from blunt instrument assault, edged weapon assault, motor vehicle
assault and so on every day. You can't be more dead than dead.

And as I said, the ultimate version of that argument is to say we
shouldn't discourage murder at all, because we'll all die anyway.

Most people don't see it that way. Most accept deaths from old age or
other natural causes as regrettable, but inevitable. Most people think
deaths from accidents are much less acceptable, especially if the
accident was caused by the carelessness of another. And most people
think murders are in a completely different category: they are outrages.
It has always been this way. Denying it is denying fundamental human nature.

Are there blunt instrument murders? A few. But as I've said, ignoring
gun murders to talk about blunt instrument murders is like
weatherstripping your windows instead of fixing the two foot diameter
hole in the wall.

Lawful pistols and rifles are not full auto.

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?

Do you take each individual weapon and some how shoot off all the
bullets in the magazine? And who shoots them?

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?

seconds, let alone a gun that can carry a barrel magazine with over a
hundred rounds. Let alone a gun that can easily be modified to shoot
endlessly until such a magazine is empty
..
Frank, any semi-automatic weapon can be modified to fire fully
automatic until the magazine is empty. and it isn't rocket science. A
1911 Colt, for example, takes one ot two strokes of an 8" file and it
is now full auto 'till the bullets run out.

In short, while I do hear what you say, gun laws made based on your
posts would be ludicrase. Rather like the California list of
acceptably weapons that approved a blued steel S&W and banned a
stainless model of the same pistol

And I think the guys who have
fetishes about things that look like "army guns" should just go join an
army. They'd probably **** their pants in a real battle (as would I, I
suppose), but they might learn to stop pretending.

And you are likely correct (see I don't disagree with everything that
you say :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

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?

--

Cheers,

John B.

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.


--
- Frank Krygowski

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 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.

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?

(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.")


--
- Frank Krygowski

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!
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.

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?

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.

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?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 1:21:31 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, August 5, 2019 at 12:49:18 PM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Sunday, August 4, 2019 at 6:45:03 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/4/2019 7:47 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:
On Sat, 03 Aug 2019 20:24:00 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/3/2019 6:09 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 12:13:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/3/2019 11:54 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 11:43:56 AM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/2/2019 11:25 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2019 18:16:09 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

No. Because you stated that "no helmet equates to zero protection" which means all helmets have some protection.

O.K. I'll rephrase that. if we assume that a total lack of a helmet
equates to zero protection... :-)

Ah, but it doesn't! For years, we had a quite clever poster here (Guy
Chapman) who noted, by analogy, that his wooly cap had saved his life!

I could make the same claim. The only time I hit my head while riding
was when I was a teen. It was a fairly hard hit, and I'm sure a helmet
would have been crushed or cracked, had they existed and I had been
wearing one. So I guess it was the wooly cap that saved me.

--
- Frank Krygowski

Want to have some fun? Take a couple of melons and put a wooly cap on one and a helmet on the other and then drop them from a a respectable height so that the wooly cap hits the pavement first and also the helmet hits the pavement first. I'm willing to be that t he melon with the helmet over it will suffer less damage than the melon with the wooly cap.

It's a very popular demonstration, quite useful at scaring parents and
their little kids away from ever riding bicycles. Too bad they don't do
the same thing for those much bigger sources of brain injuries - riding
in cars and walking.

VBEG We all know you're extremely anti-helmet. LOL

I'm actually for honesty, for truthful presentation of data, and for
individual choice.

If I were anti-helmet, I'd be working to outlaw them. It would be
parallel to the helmeteers efforts to outlaw riding bikes without helmets.

Is there a mandatory helmet law where you live? (I believe so.) Which
side is imposing its will on the other side?


But! But! Frank! The government is only trying (by legislation) to
make you safe...

Perhaps a logical extenuation of the concept would be simply
outlawing those dangerous devices called bicycles.
Think of it, perhaps 800 lives, and thousands of injuries, saved every
year.

And it makes perfect sense in the USian logical system. After all,
every time there is a mass shooting the anti gun fraternity is
screaming for guns to be banned and here we have this two wheeled
device that is killing 800 perfectly good tax paying US citizens every
year.

Ban The Two Wheel Killers!
--
cheers,

John B.


Absolutely! If every scary looking firearm were to suddenly
vanish why we'd all be safe:

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.

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.

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.
--
cheers,

John B.


As I often note, we're a large nation. We have one of
everything.

We are indeed a very well armed country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7ba8f4d2160

And yet today, as most days, the greater bulk of firearms
were nicely oiled and packed in their cases.

Violent events per lawfully armed citizen are extremely low
but as compared to countries without significant firearm
ownership, higher.

As with our current contraband drug discussion, Mexico has
draconian and extensive firearm regulation, a virtual
prohibition, yet their firearm murder rate is horrific.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ence-up-report

It isn't clear to me that the Vice Lords, MS-13, Crips,
Bloods or P-Stone Nation will disarm just because law
abiding citizens would.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Another problem is that the left will openly lie about "gun crimes" or "murders". 80% of all gun deaths are suicides and the left inserts those into the murders by gun column. There may be many reasons for suicide not the least of which is an ever encroaching government driving people into bankruptcy.

Speaking of bankruptcy, Tom, how is the portfolio doing today? Hope your advisors put you in long-term bond funds -- or maybe gold. Who would have thought China would retaliate? It's so complicated!

-- Jay Beattie.

The value of my portfolio hasn't changed anything worth talking about. Why would that bother you? Buying GOLD??? I leave that to people like you who are willing to lose half of your investment literally overnight.

On 8/7/2019 12:16 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 06 Aug 2019 20:04:25 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 8/6/2019 7:12 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/6/2019 3:27 PM, AMuzi wrote:
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.

The ultimate step in that line of argument would be this:

"Murderers should not be prosecuted, because everyone is
going to die anyway."



You could say that. I wouldn't.

If I had any faith in the prosecutors getting the right guy
more often than not I'd favor a swift and sure death penalty
for murder. That's the critical factor which keeps me from
that position.

They seem to be as effective there as running the MVD or any
other public gerbil-wheel program.

Speaking of banning 'weapons of war'[1] less than 5% of
bump-stock owners complied with the turn-in orders. Great
law, that. But hey let's write more laws! Maybe double-dog
really prohibit felon in possession? That would be big news
to prosecutors since they hardly ever charge it now.

I keep telling y'll, you gotta have some penalties. You just can't
keep making them laws.

Singapore, for example, has the lowest "drug problem" in the world.
Because if you are caught with drugs they hang you. No grand jury, no
appeals. they catch you with drugs they hang you.

As Sam Johnson said, "Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to
be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."


[1]Silly gadget that no firearm owner of my acquaintance
took seriously or ever considered buying. It was not ruled
on at all in the GWB administration, OK'd for unregulated
sale by BHO's ATF and only recently banned under DJT. Only
one significant event (LasVegas nutcase) was tied to them.
--

Cheers,

John B.


You got that right. These from the overnight local news:

https://www.channel3000.com/news/sun...pon/1106765017

You might have pity on him as it's only his second time for
a firearm violation (and of course bail jumping) How about
this guy, up to NINE:

https://www.channel3000.com/news/cri...rge/1106558138

After perusing the national news about abetting illegals, I
think it's time to declare my 1965 Chevy a "Sanctuary
Vehicle" so I can ignore the speeding laws. Thanks,
California, for boldly establishing the precedent. (Any
comparison between California now and South Carolina in 1861
is quite apt)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971