NY bike path mayhem

On 11/7/2017 11:49 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 11/7/2017 10:01 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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?

Yes, you've said that before. And I've pointed out that there are strict
laws regarding the purchase and use of machine guns. Unlike a compact
semi-automatic rifle with man-killing design features, you can't just
walk into a store and buy a machine gun.

And the result? As you say, machine gun crime rates are very low! So how
about that? Those gun laws work!

Hunting is a red herring and absolutely unrelated to the 2d Amendment,
as a review of the legislative history clearly shows.

Here's the relationship: The NRA fools hundreds of thousands of dopes
into thinking that anyone who's not an extreme right-winger wants to
take away all their guns. Many of those who finance the NRA are hunters
who buy into that nonsense. But it is nonsense; and their fees and
donations are used to protect thugs and murderers' ability to buy
hardware they use to kill people.

There is a place for guns. There is no logical justification for a
private citizen owning something that can be used to kill over two dozen
churchgoers within a minute.

The history of
unarmed populations /in extremis/ is also clear.

By the same logic:

The Native Americans had no bombs, and look what happened to them!
Therefore, every American household should own at least a few bombs.

After all, when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

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?

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.

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?

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.

There are numerous people who are going to **** all over what you said, but
I find it to be very logical.

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 10:51:26 -0500, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 11/7/2017 1:47 AM, John B. wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 01:14:09 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:


What evidence do you have that those concerned about gun deaths are
complacent about highway deaths? Are you pretending that if anyone
complains about a murder, there's some rule stating that they must
simultaneously complain about every other cause of death?

As I said above. Y'all seem so complacent. 26 people die of gun shot
wounds and every is hopping up and down, waving their arms in the air
and moaning and groaning. But I don't hear a peep about the
approximately 90 people that died in traffic "accidents" the same day.

No evidence other then what I see but it does seem apparent that it
isn't dead people that are of concern, it is how they died.

Well, John, by your own "logic," I see that you don't give a whit about
over one million Americans dying each year because of heart disease and
cancer.

You must be a cancer lover! Why do you love cancer, John?

(OK, sarcasm off now.)

Ah yes, Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit but the highest form of
intelligence, according to Oscar Wilde.

However, given that Wilde initiated a private prosecution against the
Marques of Queensberry, for libel. Unfortunately, Wilde was unable to
prove his assertions and Queensberry's acquittal rendered Wilde
legally liable for the considerable expenses Queensberry had incurred
in his defense, which left Wilde bankrupt.

Subsequently, of course, Wilde was convicted of "gross indecency" and
sentenced to two years' hard labour, and spent his last few years in
impoverished exile, which may mitigate the value of Wilde's statement
as he quite obviously did not display "the highest form of
intelligence". Quite the opposite in fact.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 11:01:12 -0500, 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.

Nope Frank, it doesn't wash.

In your original post, which I notice you have adroitly snipped,
apparently to eliminate any reference to your original thoughts, you
equated gun ownership to firearm crimes, specifically murder and
intentionally homicide.

But when I compare gun ownership and gun homicide and intentional
homicide in the various states it doesn't compare at all, in fact
Washington D.C. with a gun ownership of 25.9% has a murder and non
negligent manslaughter rate of 24.2/100,000.

I cannot find other states with exactly 25.9% gun ownership but the
closest I find a
Illinois - 26.2%
Washington State - 27.7%
Vermont - 28.8%

The murder and non negligent manslaughter rate for these states is:
Illinois - 5.8/100,000
Washington State - 2.9/100,000
Vermont - 1.6/100,000

It almost appears that the more guns the lower the illegal use
thereof, doesn't it?

As for rate of fire, which seems to be your current fetish, I provided
information some time ago about Ed McGivern, who on September 13,
1932, shooting five rounds from a double-action revolver in 2/5 of a
second.

Note that Ed's preferred revolvers were S&W M&P (now known as the
Model 10) which were first manufactured in 1899.

As an aside, when asked why he didn't use automatics for his shooting
demonstrations McGivern stated that they were too slow and he could
fire a revolver faster.

Note that 5 shots in 2/5ths of a second is a rate of fire of about 750
rpm, to use the normal equation to describe rate of fire and that
figure is very similar to the full automatic M-16 with it's 700 -900
rpm and the AK-47, probably they most widely used Assault Rifle is
even slower at 600 rpm.

As I've said before. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.
--
Cheers,

John B.

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 :-)


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.

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.


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.

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 3:51:19 AM UTC, Ralph Barone wrote:

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.

Come on, Ralph, cut Slow Johnny a break: he confuses blunt lack of sophistication with common sense.

I'm no gunlover. I live happily in a gunfree country where the police go unarmed. The murder rate is in the basement, compared to the US. (Hey, we had a murder in the small town where I lived for nearly forty years. The dumb pair of killers dropped the body in the river within clear sight of the police station, and under the only bridge in town, which carries traffic to about one-eight of the whole country. Case closed on the same day!) But the Swiss also have a very low murder rate, and every Swiss male has an actual automatic rifle at home, given to him by his government for civil defense.

Just thought I'd mention it. Seems to me arguments on both sides can be used by both sides interchangeably. It's not the actual gun, I think, that causes the murders; it is the contempt for life that breeds the gun culture. I reckon that if the American police started taking the guns out of the place where most murders are committed, the ghetto, the pinkos and other Democrats, and especially the judges, would scream to high heaven. But that's the catch-22: if you take the guns from the criminals, solid citizens won't need guns and will be more likely to turn them in voluntarily. It's the same problem as when the wishful thinkers tell us all about cycling in The Netherlands: it's not about cycle paths, or even laws, it's about attitude, the whole culture. You don't change that overnight or even in a generation.

Andre Jute
I'm on the side of all rational people

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.

On Wed, 8 Nov 2017 03:51:14 +0000 (UTC), 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.


Actually the "home base" for the British troops was the colonies, or
at least for the regiments raised in the N. American colonies, it was.
The King's Royal Rifle Corps was an infantry rifle regiment of the
British Army that was originally raised in British North America as
the Royal American Regiment (also known as the Royal Americans) in the
Seven Years' War. They were a part of the English/British/United
Kingdom's military from 1756 until 1966.
--
Cheers,

John B.