Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 09:53:09 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:


Nice try but a perusal of your posts show a (one might say) horror when
mentioning "mass shootings" and frankly I couldn't find a single post
where you bemoaned the, roughly, 100 a day that die on U.S. highways.

I raised that point on another list and the reply from a US citizen was
that all the victms volunterily chose to engage in those activites.

I also should point out that his solution to mass shootings was for
everyone to carry. Sigh. Just what you want when drug induced mental
health issues are balloning.

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:

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

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

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

On 8/6/2019 2:09 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/6/2019 12:46 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. Slocomb writes:

On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 14:34:51 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/5/2019 12:23 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/5/2019 9:58 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/5/2019 4:07 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 5 Aug 2019 00:13:04 -0400, Frank
Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/4/2019 8:47 PM, John B. wrote:
rOn Sun, 4 Aug 2019 11:06:33 -0400, Frank
Krygowski wrote:

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


Well, of course. After all everybody knows
that "guns
kill" so
logically if there no guns there would be
no "killed".

I don't know of anyone who seriously
believes that.

But to be more realistic: What are the gun
laws in the
country where you
now live? And what's the gun murder rate
per 100,000?
What's the total
murder rate per 100,000? IOW, how are your
gun laws
working out?

The gun laws in Thailand are essentially
that guns are
banned...
except in some cases. You can't legally
carry a pistol
in your pocket
in Bangkok but no one will object to your
having a
shotgun over our
shoulder in some remote jungle area where
wildlife isÂÂ* a
danger.

Yes, nobody much objects to long guns in the
woods here.
But "can't
legally carry a pistol in a pocket"? Some
here would say
that's akin to
slicing off a man's ... um, masculinity. (And
it's true
that some men
seem to confuse their guns with their genital
organs.)

As for gun deaths it would be rather
misleading to quote
them as the
UNODC murder rate in Thailand is
3.24/100,000 and in the
U.S.
5.30/100,000 so obviously whatever criteria
you care to
defineÂÂ* murder
rates in the U.S. will likely be higher than
in Thailand.

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

But you don't think the differences in gun
laws are a
factor?

I was pointing out that the table I saw was
based on UNODC
rates.

But I'm not sure whether gun laws,
specifically, are
really a factor
in Thai homicide rates. Certainly the news is
full of
knife, club,
whatever, (even by hand), murders and illegal
ownership of
firearms is
extremely common so I'm not sure what effect
the rather
strict gun
laws in Thailand have on homicide rates.

As an aside I might mention that the CDC
homicide numbers
in the U.S.
seem to be all - homicides - 19,510, Firearms
- 14,542 so
about 75% of
homicides in the U.S. age gun related. But!

According to the Centers for Disease Control,
using data
available for
analysis on September 5, 2018, there were a
reported
70,652 deaths
attributed to drug overdose in the US for the
year ending
December
2017. Some deaths were still under
investigation. The CDC
projects
that the total for 2017 will be 72,222.

It makes the 14,542 gun deaths seem a bit....
well one
might say
somewhat less than urgent :-)

According to Statistia some 43% of U.S.
households owned
one or more
guns in 2017. That is (I believe) some
126,220,000
households with
guns and 14,000 gun deaths (not, I believe,
including self
inflected
death) or a rate of 1 gun death per 9,015.7
households.

And Auto Deaths? Some 37,133 deaths in 2017 -
the same
year as the
14,000 gun deaths. Or one traffic death per
3,399 families.

But than, we all know that they are "traffic
accidents",
which seem to
be acceptable and "GUN DEATHS!" which are
horrifying.


We just had two mass murders within about
half a day,
one in Texas, the
next in Ohio. Does that happen a lot where
you live?

You seem to be "proving" my stated point
that "guns
kill", unless of
course then guys in Texas were waving swords.

You seem to be sidestepping my question. How
often _does_
that happen
where you live?

Well, I gave you the figures, about 61% of the
U.S. numbers.

No, John, you didn't give me the numbers I
asked for. Nice
try at sidestepping, though.

Here was my question: "We just had two mass
murders within
about half a day, one in Texas, the next in
Ohio. Does that
happen a lot where you live?" And I repeated:
"How often
_does_ that happen where you live?"

I'm not surprised you have occasional killings
using knives,
clubs and hands, as you describe. But how many
_mass_
killings? How many instances of a guy with a
knife quickly
slaying, say, 20 people who were shopping and
injuring a
couple dozen more?



I don't know from Thailand but in Chicago it's
all day every day:
https://maggionews.com/
https://heyjackass.com/

I see very few reports of mass killings using
knives.

Well, of course not. these are modern times and
modern man is too lazy
to undertake "mass killings" with a butcher knife
but in years gone
my, when man kind was a bit more energetic...

For example:
In the year 390 when Roman Emperor Theodosius I
sent troops to
Thessalonica in order to quell some civil unrest.
and 7,000 were
killed.

On May 20, 1645Â* Qing troops led by Prince Dodo
of the Qing Dynasty
killed as many as 80,000 people.

Machetes were prominent during the Rwandan genocide
much more recently.


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

But hey nothing to see here, move along.

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

If merely writing laws could change behavior...

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

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

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

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

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. 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/

The report stated:

On Thursday, a bomb exploded in a market in the southern province of
Trang, killing one person and injuring six.

Later, on Thursday night, two bombs exploded 20 minutes apart in the
resort city of Hua Hin, killing one Thai woman and injuring at least
20, including ten foreign nationals.

Hours later, on Friday morning two more blasts killed another person
and injured four more according to Thai authorities. Thai media
reports that the woman killed was a street food vendor.

Also on Friday morning, another two bombs exploded in Surat Thani
outside police stations, killing one and injuring several others,
according to local media.

Two bombs also exploded in Phuket around 8 a.m. local time in front of
a hotel and a police booth in the tourist area of Patong, injuring one
person, reports local media.

About 200 kilometers north in Phang Nga province, two bombs went off
in Khao Lak and another in Khuek Khak around 9 a.m. local time. Hours
earlier, over 80 shops were gutted by a fire in the Takua Pa market
frequented by tourists.

--

Cheers,

John B.

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.

On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 20:33:45 -0700, 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:

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.

While i think this comparison discussion is really a complete waste of
time, I'll disagree with your characterisation of "traffic accidents".
They are symtomatic of the lack of consideration of ones fellow and I
tend to think of "traffic accidents" as "legal murder". I await the
scinetific proof that these are just random inescapble events.

On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 00:25:18 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 10:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

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.

And it's not a big problem. If it were, you'd have posted dozens of
accounts of murder by fertilizer/diesel bombs.

Over here, that was nipped in the bud early as the few demos on ewetube
resulted in Plod making enquires and laying charges. So a lot of casual
supoplies dried up. Then you ad to acctually know where a "feed and
grain" store was to purchase your bag. Attempts to purchase multiple bags
would result in a referral to plod as well.

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.

I have never said I accept the fact that 100 die daily on the nation's
roads. Don't pretend I did. It's dishonest.

Agreed, My 2c is that john is failing to advamce his argument by
splitting his targets. as they say about sea urchins; a point in all
directions is no point at all.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 22:41:51 -0400, 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?

But Frank, this is a standard S&W revolver, just like the ones that
have been manufactured for what? a Hundred and sixty years?

And now you say that they should be banned?


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, the standard "bulls eye" match consists of Slow fire - 10
rounds in 10 minutes, Timed Fire - 5 rounds in 20 seconds and Rapid
fire - 5 rounds in 10 seconds.

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.

How in God's World will you fit a timing device to as rudimentary
mechanism as a revolver.

Ah well, I guess we can throw away all the revolvers made since the
1800's.

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.

What Honestly. The amendment is clearly worded and is rather exact for
the period in which it was written. You are simply arguing that
"things have changed" since 1791 and so we ought to chuck out the Bill
or Rights? Or do you mean simply the parts that you don't agree with?


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.

As I wrote in another post, I have seen you practically frothing at
the mouth about firearm deaths's but I can't remember you ever even
mentioning road deaths.
--

Cheers,

John B.

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.

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, 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?

Because stopping one would save 22 people, whilst the other would require
hundreds of interventions.


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

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

as jay said, that is the price of their capitalst system.

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 :-)


--

Cheers,

John B.

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.




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?

Because stopping one would save 22 people, whilst the other would require
hundreds of interventions.


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

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

as jay said, that is the price of their capitalst system.
--

Cheers,

John B.