|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#101
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 21:17:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie
wrote: On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/7/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:18:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/6/2017 9:44 PM, John B. wrote: In short, your thesis that guns cause crime just isn't correct. Where did I say that was my thesis? The old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people, apparently is correct. In the U.S., people murder people mostly by using guns. In most other advanced countries, the murder rates are far lower, and the gun murder rates lower yet. You can't rationally pretend that the availability of guns is not a significant factor. If there is a relationship between numbers of guns and gun deaths then why doesn't this relationship manifest itself in the U.S. As I have pointed out innumerable times states with very high gun ownership frequently have very low firearm homicide rates while areas with relatively low gun ownership frequently have very high firearm homicide rates. So, based on actual numbers, no there doesn't appear to be a relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates. And as I've pointed out many times, try instead to investigate the correlation between guns designed for killing people and homicide rates. IOW, exclude long rifles and shotguns designed and intended for killing game. Look instead at guns designed to fire more than about ten shots in a minute, and look at guns designed to be easily concealed. Sparsely populated states with long-established hunting cultures (e.g. Montana and Vermont) have large numbers of hunting guns, and low gun homicide rates. And I've made it clear many times that I'm pro-hunting and not at all against guns designed for hunting. Nobody hunts with AR-style rifles, unless it's a gun nut trying to show it's not completely impossible. And nobody needs to hunt with a rapid fire handgun. There are 15,238 actual machine guns registered in your State, Ohio. http://chartsbin.com/view/1922 As with the barefoot plumber this week, most guys are normal (by definition) and no trouble at all. When's the last time you heard a Browning M2 in your neighborhood? Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d Amendment, as a review of the legislative history clearly shows. The history of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is also clear. None of it is clear. If the Jews had been armed, they would have been wiped out anyway. They were a minority population. The Nazis wiped out most of Europe, including armed Free French and millions of Russians. I can't think of any disarmed population that would have prevailed if it only had arms. What would have happened in Cambodia? The smart people with glasses form a militia? I hate to intrude into your obviously well thought out arguments but I was reminded of a country, way back in 1775, where a bunch of guys in Massachusetts did in fact do battle with regular soldiers, apparently with their own weapons. And they claimed to have beaten the Regulars too :-) Sure. Nearly 250 years ago, in a place that was weeks away from the "home base" of those red coated assholes. Your analogy bodes well for when Mars attacks us. There was a continental congress that formed an army, got buy-in from a seasoned general, funding from France and declared independence. Concord and Lexington were skirmishes. Absent an organized army, the skirmishes would have been footnotes to British history, like the Whisky rebellion. The continental army was not a bunch of basement ******s with rifles -- the Bundy clan occupying a Federal bird sanctuary in Oregon -- and daddy not wanting to pay grazing fees to the Feds. WTF? These people give the Second Amendment a bad name. -- Jay Beattie. The first Continental Congress met from September 5 to October 26, 1774 and apparently organized an economic boycott of Great Britain in protest and petitioned the King for a redress of grievances. The "Battle of Lexington" was fought on 19 April 1775. The Second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1775, at Philadelphia's State House, passing the resolution for independence the following year on July 2, 1776, and publicly asserting the decision two days later with the Declaration of Independence. On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress decided to proceed with the establishment of a Continental Army for purposes of common defense -- Cheers, John B. |
Ads |
#102
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
Ralph Barone wrote:
John B. wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/7/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:18:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/6/2017 9:44 PM, John B. wrote: In short, your thesis that guns cause crime just isn't correct. Where did I say that was my thesis? The old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people, apparently is correct. In the U.S., people murder people mostly by using guns. In most other advanced countries, the murder rates are far lower, and the gun murder rates lower yet. You can't rationally pretend that the availability of guns is not a significant factor. If there is a relationship between numbers of guns and gun deaths then why doesn't this relationship manifest itself in the U.S. As I have pointed out innumerable times states with very high gun ownership frequently have very low firearm homicide rates while areas with relatively low gun ownership frequently have very high firearm homicide rates. So, based on actual numbers, no there doesn't appear to be a relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates. And as I've pointed out many times, try instead to investigate the correlation between guns designed for killing people and homicide rates. IOW, exclude long rifles and shotguns designed and intended for killing game. Look instead at guns designed to fire more than about ten shots in a minute, and look at guns designed to be easily concealed. Sparsely populated states with long-established hunting cultures (e.g. Montana and Vermont) have large numbers of hunting guns, and low gun homicide rates. And I've made it clear many times that I'm pro-hunting and not at all against guns designed for hunting. Nobody hunts with AR-style rifles, unless it's a gun nut trying to show it's not completely impossible. And nobody needs to hunt with a rapid fire handgun. There are 15,238 actual machine guns registered in your State, Ohio. http://chartsbin.com/view/1922 As with the barefoot plumber this week, most guys are normal (by definition) and no trouble at all. When's the last time you heard a Browning M2 in your neighborhood? Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d Amendment, as a review of the legislative history clearly shows. The history of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is also clear. None of it is clear. If the Jews had been armed, they would have been wiped out anyway. They were a minority population. The Nazis wiped out most of Europe, including armed Free French and millions of Russians. I can't think of any disarmed population that would have prevailed if it only had arms. What would have happened in Cambodia? The smart people with glasses form a militia? I hate to intrude into your obviously well thought out arguments but I was reminded of a country, way back in 1775, where a bunch of guys in Massachusetts did in fact do battle with regular soldiers, apparently with their own weapons. And they claimed to have beaten the Regulars too :-) Sure. Nearly 250 years ago, in a place that was weeks away from the "home base" of those red coated assholes. Your analogy bodes well for when Mars attacks us. I guess he’s not referring to the Boston Massacre. But in any case, the red coated assholes were not in tanks calling in air support and scud missiles. Semi-automatic weapons may be quite sufficient to murder large numbers of innocent people but if the argument for them is to stand off the army of a repressive US government then maybe Jays advice about changing the government at the polls makes more sense. I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say that the problem in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed. And what does this have to do with the US? If we don't trust our state and federal governments, then we need to actually work on fixing government and not stockpiling weapons. The notion that a bunch of right-minded people armed to the teeth are going to over-throw the fascists and mud-people and form some Ayn Rand utopia (illustrated by Thomas Hart Benton) is lunatic. Insurrection by isolated populations leads to Somalia not utopia. Also, the Second Amendment echoed provisions in state constitutions either allowing or requiring white, protestant male citizens to own guns and to serve in colonial militias -- typically to fight Indians and other aggressors. As an amendment, the provision acted as a limitation on federal power. As applied to the states under Fourteenth Amendment, it protects a claimed "fundamental right," although its not clear what right is fundamental -- the right to own a smooth bore long-rifle? Have a gun for service in a well-regulated state militia? There certainly is no fundamental right to a 100 round semi-auto carbine suitable for wiping out a church-full of parishioners. At the state or colonial level, it was never "we need our guns because the government is coming to get us . . . we're in trouble and must shoot back!" The Founding Fathers trusted their colonial governments. They were the colonial governments. If people don't trust their government, then they need to get off their asses and get smart and get involved. The revolution should be intellectual and should start with unplugging anything Alt -- right or left -- and most of social media, except rec.bikes.non-tech. -- Jay Beattie. -- Cheers, John B. -- duane |
#103
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 11:04:33 PM UTC-8, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 21:17:25 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/7/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:18:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/6/2017 9:44 PM, John B. wrote: In short, your thesis that guns cause crime just isn't correct. Where did I say that was my thesis? The old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people, apparently is correct. In the U.S., people murder people mostly by using guns. In most other advanced countries, the murder rates are far lower, and the gun murder rates lower yet. You can't rationally pretend that the availability of guns is not a significant factor. If there is a relationship between numbers of guns and gun deaths then why doesn't this relationship manifest itself in the U.S. As I have pointed out innumerable times states with very high gun ownership frequently have very low firearm homicide rates while areas with relatively low gun ownership frequently have very high firearm homicide rates. So, based on actual numbers, no there doesn't appear to be a relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates. And as I've pointed out many times, try instead to investigate the correlation between guns designed for killing people and homicide rates. IOW, exclude long rifles and shotguns designed and intended for killing game. Look instead at guns designed to fire more than about ten shots in a minute, and look at guns designed to be easily concealed. Sparsely populated states with long-established hunting cultures (e.g. Montana and Vermont) have large numbers of hunting guns, and low gun homicide rates. And I've made it clear many times that I'm pro-hunting and not at all against guns designed for hunting. Nobody hunts with AR-style rifles, unless it's a gun nut trying to show it's not completely impossible. And nobody needs to hunt with a rapid fire handgun. There are 15,238 actual machine guns registered in your State, Ohio. http://chartsbin.com/view/1922 As with the barefoot plumber this week, most guys are normal (by definition) and no trouble at all. When's the last time you heard a Browning M2 in your neighborhood? Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d Amendment, as a review of the legislative history clearly shows. The history of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is also clear. None of it is clear. If the Jews had been armed, they would have been wiped out anyway. They were a minority population. The Nazis wiped out most of Europe, including armed Free French and millions of Russians. I can't think of any disarmed population that would have prevailed if it only had arms. What would have happened in Cambodia? The smart people with glasses form a militia? I hate to intrude into your obviously well thought out arguments but I was reminded of a country, way back in 1775, where a bunch of guys in Massachusetts did in fact do battle with regular soldiers, apparently with their own weapons. And they claimed to have beaten the Regulars too :-) Sure. Nearly 250 years ago, in a place that was weeks away from the "home base" of those red coated assholes. Your analogy bodes well for when Mars attacks us. There was a continental congress that formed an army, got buy-in from a seasoned general, funding from France and declared independence. Concord and Lexington were skirmishes. Absent an organized army, the skirmishes would have been footnotes to British history, like the Whisky rebellion. The continental army was not a bunch of basement ******s with rifles -- the Bundy clan occupying a Federal bird sanctuary in Oregon -- and daddy not wanting to pay grazing fees to the Feds. WTF? These people give the Second Amendment a bad name. -- Jay Beattie. The first Continental Congress met from September 5 to October 26, 1774 and apparently organized an economic boycott of Great Britain in protest and petitioned the King for a redress of grievances. The "Battle of Lexington" was fought on 19 April 1775. The Second Continental Congress convened on May 10, 1775, at Philadelphia's State House, passing the resolution for independence the following year on July 2, 1776, and publicly asserting the decision two days later with the Declaration of Independence. On June 14, 1775, the Second Continental Congress decided to proceed with the establishment of a Continental Army for purposes of common defense Yes, like I said, there were skirmishes and then a war. We won the war. The war was not fought by ad hoc groups of disaffected self-appointed "patriots." A group of colonial governments acting through their representatives declared independence, raised an army, fought a war and won -- and built a representative government, and here we are. I can't look into the past and formulate alternative realities, but my assumption is that if the war had been confined to Massachusetts and there had been no continental army, the British would have re-grouped and attacked in force after the siege. I don't think the British were interested in peace at that point. There is no parallel between the American Revolution and deadbeats with guns who think the federal government is out to get them because they have to pay grazing fees -- or because the federal government owns too much property. The parallel is Don Quixote. -- Jay Beattie. -- Jay Beattie. |
#104
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
On 11/8/2017 6:04 AM, Duane wrote:
I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say that the problem in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed. Of course. If he didn't claim the problem was a lack of guns, his next election campaign would be under-financed by tens of thousands of dollars, at least. And he'd lose the hairy knuckle vote. -- - Frank Krygowski |
#105
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
On 11/8/2017 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 11/8/2017 6:04 AM, Duane wrote: I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say that the problem in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed. Of course. If he didn't claim the problem was a lack of guns, his next election campaign would be under-financed by tens of thousands of dollars, at least. And he'd lose the hairy knuckle vote. Calling names such as hairy knuckle or deplorable (or alternately racist, Hitler etc) doesn't make your case as well as you might and may harden positions you might have otherwise persuaded. NRA was mentioned a couple of times recently here, about which I will note that they have lost a lot of support among regular American firearms owners in the past couple of years. I've been a member on and off for most of my adult life but I probably will not renew in the spring. That's mostly to clarify that solid blocks you imagine have their own internal fault lines. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 9:17:27 PM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7:51:19 PM UTC-8, Ralph Barone wrote: John B. wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:18:00 -0800 (PST), jbeattie wrote: On Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 8:49:31 AM UTC-8, AMuzi wrote: On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/7/2017 2:01 AM, John B. wrote: On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:18:15 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/6/2017 9:44 PM, John B. wrote: In short, your thesis that guns cause crime just isn't correct. Where did I say that was my thesis? The old adage that guns don't kill people, people kill people, apparently is correct. In the U.S., people murder people mostly by using guns. In most other advanced countries, the murder rates are far lower, and the gun murder rates lower yet. You can't rationally pretend that the availability of guns is not a significant factor. If there is a relationship between numbers of guns and gun deaths then why doesn't this relationship manifest itself in the U.S. As I have pointed out innumerable times states with very high gun ownership frequently have very low firearm homicide rates while areas with relatively low gun ownership frequently have very high firearm homicide rates. So, based on actual numbers, no there doesn't appear to be a relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates. And as I've pointed out many times, try instead to investigate the correlation between guns designed for killing people and homicide rates. IOW, exclude long rifles and shotguns designed and intended for killing game. Look instead at guns designed to fire more than about ten shots in a minute, and look at guns designed to be easily concealed. Sparsely populated states with long-established hunting cultures (e.g. Montana and Vermont) have large numbers of hunting guns, and low gun homicide rates. And I've made it clear many times that I'm pro-hunting and not at all against guns designed for hunting. Nobody hunts with AR-style rifles, unless it's a gun nut trying to show it's not completely impossible. And nobody needs to hunt with a rapid fire handgun. There are 15,238 actual machine guns registered in your State, Ohio. http://chartsbin.com/view/1922 As with the barefoot plumber this week, most guys are normal (by definition) and no trouble at all. When's the last time you heard a Browning M2 in your neighborhood? Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d Amendment, as a review of the legislative history clearly shows. The history of unarmed populations /in extremis/ is also clear. None of it is clear. If the Jews had been armed, they would have been wiped out anyway. They were a minority population. The Nazis wiped out most of Europe, including armed Free French and millions of Russians.. I can't think of any disarmed population that would have prevailed if it only had arms. What would have happened in Cambodia? The smart people with glasses form a militia? I hate to intrude into your obviously well thought out arguments but I was reminded of a country, way back in 1775, where a bunch of guys in Massachusetts did in fact do battle with regular soldiers, apparently with their own weapons. And they claimed to have beaten the Regulars too :-) Sure. Nearly 250 years ago, in a place that was weeks away from the "home base" of those red coated assholes. Your analogy bodes well for when Mars attacks us. There was a continental congress that formed an army, got buy-in from a seasoned general, funding from France and declared independence. Concord and Lexington were skirmishes. Absent an organized army, the skirmishes would have been footnotes to British history, like the Whisky rebellion. The continental army was not a bunch of basement ******s with rifles -- the Bundy clan occupying a Federal bird sanctuary in Oregon -- and daddy not wanting to pay grazing fees to the Feds. WTF? These people give the Second Amendment a bad name. Does that include this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dhrg6SH9yvE |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
On Wed, 08 Nov 2017 10:08:43 +0700, John B wrote:
As I've said before. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. That was facile bull**** when I first heard it 50 years ago. It's still facile bull****. Stephen Paddock would not have been able to shoot and kill 58 people and wound 546 if he had to use a slingshot and rocks. Guns make it stupidly simple for people to kill people. But so ****ing what? Let's cut to the chase. The simple truth is this: your right to bear arms trumps my right to live. That's what's enshrined in the Constitution as it is currently interpreted. It is one of the things that makes America the most violent nation on earth. We can dutifully offer prayers and condolences to the survivors and families, but those prayers and condolences mean exactly ****ing nothing. They change nothing- hell, they are the primary strategy for changing nothing. Human life counts for nothing in America. Guns, money and power are what count. Faith doesn't count, people don't count, the environment doesn't count, our children don't count, education doesn't count, peace doesn't count, communities don't count . Guns, power, money. That's what makes America what it is. 20 dead children in their grade school weren't enough to change anything. 58 dead people at a concert in Las Vegas weren't enough to change anything. 49 dead people in a nightclub weren't enough to change anything. 6 people dead in a business 2 blocks from where I work weren't enough. 12 people dead in a theater weren't enough to change anything. 13 dead high school students and a teacher weren't enough to change anything. 22 dead customers of a cafe weren't enough to change anything. 21 dead people in a McDonald's weren't enough to change anything. 14 dead people in a post office weren't enough to change anything. 32 dead college students weren't enough to change anything. 26 people dead in their church weren't enough to change anything. More than 30,000 people die every year in the US from guns, but that's not enough to change anything. Nothing is enough to change anything. Get used to it. There is a mass shooting in America every ****ing day. Every ****ing day. Nobody cares except for those burying their dead. Next week or next month when someone uses a weapon of mass destruction- which is what a semi-automatic or automatic weapon is- we can have this discussion all over again. And then again another week or month later. And every week or every month until we shuffle off this mortal coil, after which others will have this discussion every week or every month. Why? Because guns, power and money are what matter in America. |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 12:35:39 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote: On 11/8/2017 6:04 AM, Duane wrote: I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say that the problem in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed. Of course. If he didn't claim the problem was a lack of guns, his next election campaign would be under-financed by tens of thousands of dollars, at least. And he'd lose the hairy knuckle vote. Yup. It is called democracy :-) I.e., the majority get what they (believe) they want and the minority are left mumbling in corners. -- Cheers, John B. |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
NY bike path mayhem
On 11/8/2017 3:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/8/2017 11:35 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 11/8/2017 6:04 AM, Duane wrote: I just saw the governor of Texas with a straight face say that the problem in Texas was that the people in the church weren’t armed. Of course. If he didn't claim the problem was a lack of guns, his next election campaign would be under-financed by tens of thousands of dollars, at least. And he'd lose the hairy knuckle vote. Calling names such as hairy knuckle or deplorable (or alternately racist, Hitler etc) doesn't make your case as well as you might and may harden positions you might have otherwise persuaded. You're right, of course. NRA was mentioned a couple of times recently here, about which I will note that they have lost a lot of support among regular American firearms owners in the past couple of years. I've been a member on and off for most of my adult life but I probably will not renew in the spring. That's mostly to clarify that solid blocks you imagine have their own internal fault lines. And it is easy to think of an "other" group as a monolithic group. It should be clear by now that I'm not against all guns, and I strongly approve of hunting. In fact, one of my very best friends proudly showed me, just this week, the two antique handguns he had recently purchased. He's also the last guy (well, with other friends) with whom I went shooting. However, he thinks most of the current pro-gun arguments currently thrown around are nuts. -- - Frank Krygowski |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rockslide onto bike path | Joerg[_2_] | Techniques | 0 | January 24th 17 11:31 PM |
Crazed Preschooler Sued for Bike Mayhem | Jay Beattie | Techniques | 6 | October 31st 10 01:46 AM |
Shared cycle path - auditorially distracted pedestro-kretins stepping into the path of cycles | Light of Aria[_2_] | UK | 59 | March 9th 09 06:17 PM |
Saying Hi on the Bike Path | Jorg Lueke | General | 54 | November 3rd 08 10:13 PM |
Southbank path connecting to Docklands path | Jules[_2_] | Australia | 1 | June 26th 08 01:03 PM |