Hilarious American gun spoof.

[Ian Field]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be

[Andre Jute]

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 7:21:24 PM UTC+1, Ian Field wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be

Heh-heh! I don't care if little street corner gangbangers kill each other; there are far too many of them. But the main victims of violent crime are poor blacks. Maybe, if they had guns and training, they could form vigilante groups and clear the crims out of the ghetto.

Andre Jute
Smith & Wesson helps those who help themselves

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Ian Field:
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be

Thank goodness I wasn't drinking coffee when I watched that - it would
be coming out my nose and on to the keyboard..... -)

Everybody's seen this one, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rR9IaXH1M0&list=PL8cgy8dae0sjW5pfWffuLr658QRubgfzS
--
Pete Cresswell

[AMuzi]

On 7/2/2016 1:21 PM, Ian Field wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be

Actually, NRA has been a strong supporter of safety,
competence/marksmanship and 2d Amendment rights for _all_
Americans for just ages.ISTR those images at the range are
from real NRA safety classes. Their support for black
shooters predates most other national groups.Not longer than
the Republican party but 80 years before the Democrats were
dragged kicking and screaming through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Oh by the way violent or deadly incidents with the 200
million legal gun owners in USA (as opposed to stolen
weapons, felon in possession, foreign national, etc etc) are
much less common than you might imagine. Nearly all of us
woke up today and didn't do anything spectacular with our
firearms, as usual.

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

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per AMuzi:

>Actually, NRA has been a strong supporter of safety,
>competence/marksmanship and 2d Amendment rights for _all_
>Americans for just ages.ISTR those images at the range are
>from real NRA safety classes. Their support for black
>shooters predates most other national groups.Not longer than
>the Republican party but 80 years before the Democrats were
>dragged kicking and screaming through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
>
>Oh by the way violent or deadly incidents with the 200
>million legal gun owners in USA (as opposed to stolen
>weapons, felon in possession, foreign national, etc etc) are
>much less common than you might imagine. Nearly all of us
>woke up today and didn't do anything spectacular with our
>firearms, as usual.

All true AFIK.

But it has to be said that the NRA of late really works for the firearms
industry and not the hunting/shooting public.

Has anybody else read Evan Osnos' recent New Yorker article?
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/06/27/after-orlando-examining-the-gun-business
--
Pete Cresswell

[jbeattie]

On Sunday, July 3, 2016 at 12:33:49 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/2/2016 1:21 PM, Ian Field wrote:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be
>
> Actually, NRA has been a strong supporter of safety,
> competence/marksmanship and 2d Amendment rights for _all_
> Americans for just ages.ISTR those images at the range are
> from real NRA safety classes. Their support for black
> shooters predates most other national groups.Not longer than
> the Republican party but 80 years before the Democrats were
> dragged kicking and screaming through the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Dixiecrats -- what few were left -- were dragged kicking and screaming though the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Strom Thurmond and George Wallace changed their party affiliation, thank Gawd. Recall that Truman ended segregation in the Army and Johnson passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. What we now think of as the Democratic party (and not the southern Democrats who were Democrats only because they were still mad at Lincoln, a Republican), pushed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 15:48:35 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

I think it is logical to say that the NRA supports the firearm makers,
but whether that is their prime activity I don't know. After all, if
there were no firearm owners there wouldn't be a firearms industry :-)

The problem with gun crimes is that the numbers seem, always, to
support the author's contention. Yes, firearms homicide is about
3.4/100,000 but suicide by firearms are about 6.69/100,000. Usually
these two numbers are added together and flaunted as a truly
horrifying figure.

On the other hand the suicide rate in the U.S. seems to be
12.6/100,000. So in fact the suicide by forearms is roughly about 1/2
of the total suicides.

The question then is then what would the suicide rate be if there were
no guns?

Does one cry for control of bridges because people jump off them. Or
control of automobiles because people drive into bridge abutments at
100 mph? Or maybe licence purchasers and have a waiting period for
those that buy rope?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John Doe]

We appreciate your sympathy in our time of loss, but...

Our guns saved so many of you ingrates from becoming Nazi slaves.
Instead, we should have let you become Nazi toilet cleaning slaves so
you wouldn't be on the Internet spewing disrespect at us.

Australians like to bash us too. Fortunately for them, they don't have a
land border with any other country. In fact, illegal immigrants arriving
in Australia by boat are either turned away by the Australian Navy or
they are indefinitely stuck in Australian hellholes with little or no
chance of becoming Australian citizens.

Just another coward sitting behind its keyboard bashing my country,
too scared to even say where it is from...


--
"Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien ntlworld.com> wrote in news:BCTdz.896078$qo.854877 fx36.am4:

> Path: eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.fcku.it!peer02.fr7!news.highwinds-media.com!fx36.am4.POSTED!not-for-mail
> From: "Ian Field" <gangprobing.alien ntlworld.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
> Subject: Hilarious American gun spoof.
> Lines: 1
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Priority: 3
> X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
> Importance: Normal
> X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416
> Message-ID: <BCTdz.896078$qo.854877 fx36.am4>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.3.12.46
> X-Complaints-To: http://netreport.virginmedia.com
> X-Trace: 1467483681 82.3.12.46 (Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:21:21 UTC)
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2016 18:21:21 UTC
> Organization: virginmedia.com
> Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2016 19:21:41 +0100
> X-Received-Bytes: 879
> X-Received-Body-CRC: 1547114313
> Xref: mx02.eternal-september.org rec.bicycles.tech:196075
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be
>
>

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/3/2016 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> I think it is logical to say that the NRA supports the firearm makers,
> but whether that is their prime activity I don't know. After all, if
> there were no firearm owners there wouldn't be a firearms industry :-)

That's true only if you don't count the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines,
Coast Guard, National Guard and police forces as "owners."

> The problem with gun crimes is that the numbers seem, always, to
> support the author's contention.

No, sorry, that's certainly not true.

> Yes, firearms homicide is about
> 3.4/100,000 but suicide by firearms are about 6.69/100,000. Usually
> these two numbers are added together and flaunted as a truly
> horrifying figure.
>
> On the other hand the suicide rate in the U.S. seems to be
> 12.6/100,000. So in fact the suicide by forearms is roughly about 1/2
> of the total suicides.
>
> The question then is then what would the suicide rate be if there were
> no guns?

Well, I'd suggest comparing two countries that are similar in culture,
economy, etc. but have wildly different gun laws. Perhaps compare the
U.S. with Canada.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Ian Field]

"Frank Krygowski" <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nldsdc$8eu$1...@dont-email.me...

> On 7/3/2016 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it is logical to say that the NRA supports the firearm makers,
>> but whether that is their prime activity I don't know. After all, if
>> there were no firearm owners there wouldn't be a firearms industry :-)
>
> That's true only if you don't count the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines,
> Coast Guard, National Guard and police forces as "owners."

Well it wouldn't look good if the US Army had to go and buy AK47s.

In one of the Middle East wars; the DOD had to come cap in hand to our MOD
for bullets because the vast American manufacturing capacity couldn't keep
up.

Apparently the American technique for house to house fighting is; Demolish
the houses one by one with a twin mount 0.50 cal.

Meanwhile - keeping the gangbangers well armed, takes up the slack and keeps
ammo inventory moving.

[Ian Field]

"John Doe" <alway...@message.header> wrote in message
news:nlcnvb$r52$1...@dont-email.me...

> We appreciate your sympathy in our time of loss, but...
>
> Our guns saved so many of you ingrates from becoming Nazi slaves.
> Instead, we should have let you become Nazi toilet cleaning slaves so
> you wouldn't be on the Internet spewing disrespect at us.

Same old bollox never ends..................................

As the European war began, a significant proportion of the American
population wanted to join in on the axis side - blissfully ignorant of the
fact they were just a little further down Hitler's list.

At the end of the war, it was discovered that the Germans were a lot closer
to a viable nuke than they realised. Hitler would have been quite content
with planting a few dirty nukes on America. The development of the long
range booster stage for the V2 rocket was named "The New York rocket". Also
at least 3 German aircraft manufacturers had been contracted to develop the
"Amerikabomber".

Germany and Japan had signed a treaty, so when the Japs hit Pearl on 7th
Dec, Hitler was forced to bring forward his formal declaration of war to the
11th Dec. If he had the nukes and the delivery method he'd have used them on
America. Probably Britain too - but he'd spent most of the war trying to
persuade Britain to join up and go sort the Russians out.

It took a long time for the penny to drop that democracy was disappearing
fast - America continued selling strategic materials to anyone who waved
money under their noses.

America didn't get in the European war to do Britain any favours - they did
it because Hitler declared war on America a few days after the attack on
Pearl.

With lend lease (which Britain only finished paying off a few years ago)
Britain was paying for American armaments and sending British servicemen to
fight and die in a war that was declared on America.

It was the Russians that did most of the heavy lifting of WW2, and they
suffered the heaviest casualties - America got away with the least
casualties and made huge profits.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B.:

>The question then is then what would the suicide rate be if there were
>no guns?
>
>Does one cry for control of bridges because people jump off them. Or
>control of automobiles because people drive into bridge abutments at
>100 mph? Or maybe licence purchasers and have a waiting period for
>those that buy rope?

Personally I have no use for guns and do not want them around my house.

However there was a time in my life when I was more proficient than most
with both long and short firearms and I fully understand that they are
useful (maybe even necessary) tools for a certain subset of citizens.

That being said....

The whole issue seems ripe for demagoguery to me and it seems like
different sides have their own "Facts".

Australia being a case in point...

Perfectly reasonable-sounding people are writing that Australia's ban on
semi-automatic firearms and pump-action shotguns (why pump-action
shotguns and not pump-action rifles... I dunno) is responsible for
Australia's lack of mass murders since Port Arthur.

Other reasonable-sounding people write to the effect of "Absolutely
Not".

Some of both sides are obviously spinmeisters.... but I would have to
think that others are just giving honest opinions.

I would like to hear somebody smart and knowledgeable - and without an
ax to grind - comment on that situation.
--
Pete Cresswell

[AMuzi]

I doubt such a person exists in this country.

The record number of 2016 NY stabbings (and first in 3+
years CTA stabbing last week [1]) would never have happened
if only our world had no edged tools.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-red-line-stabbing-20160623-story.html

That statement is true but trite because we actually have
edged tools. Wishing won't change that.

[Duane]

Hard to kill 50 at a time with edged tools.

[AMuzi]

Right. one would need a pressure cooker probably.

[Duane]

Just saying.

[Frank Krygowski]

And when bombs are outlawed, only outlaws will have bombs.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Looks like there are, very roughly, 30,000 deaths by firearms annually
in the U.S. vs. roughly 1700 deaths by knives, swords, etc.

There are places that put some limits on carrying edge tools about.
Naturally, there are those who argue against those limits. When swords
are outlawed, only outlaws will have swords, I guess.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 07-04-2016 19:28, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Perfectly reasonable-sounding people are writing that Australia's ban on
> semi-automatic firearms and pump-action shotguns (why pump-action
> shotguns and not pump-action rifles... I dunno) is responsible for
> Australia's lack of mass murders since Port Arthur.
>
> Other reasonable-sounding people write to the effect of "Absolutely
> Not".
>
> Some of both sides are obviously spinmeisters.... but I would have to
> think that others are just giving honest opinions.
>
> I would like to hear somebody smart and knowledgeable - and without an
> ax to grind - comment on that situation.

After hearing claims that Australia's gun buyback caused violence rates
to soar and other claims that it caused them to drop, I did the
unthinkable: I attempted to find out the truth.

From an apparently official website, I found that the rates did change
right after the buyback, and then went back to about the same as before.

As usual, the demagogues on both sides were lying.

--
Wes Groleau

[AMuzi]

Are you intimating that criminal assault will use whatever
weapon is at hand? Not very PC of you.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/4/2016 5:04 PM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
>
>
> After hearing claims that Australia's gun buyback caused violence rates
> to soar and other claims that it caused them to drop, I did the
> unthinkable: I attempted to find out the truth.
>
> From an apparently official website, I found that the rates did change
> right after the buyback, and then went back to about the same as before.

Got a link?

>
> As usual, the demagogues on both sides were lying.

http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Also, while Snopes shows a rise in robberies a few years after the gun
buyback, at their absolute peak they were less than the U.S. rate, per
capita. They are now _much_ less.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:38:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/3/2016 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>
>> I think it is logical to say that the NRA supports the firearm makers,
>> but whether that is their prime activity I don't know. After all, if
>> there were no firearm owners there wouldn't be a firearms industry :-)
>
>That's true only if you don't count the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines,
>Coast Guard, National Guard and police forces as "owners."

Well, yes. Sort of. For example the standard U.S. Military hand gun is
a Biretta, an Italian make. The figures most often used for firearms
in the hands of private users is somewhere between 192 and 300 million
weapons. While the number of military on active duty seems to be about
1.4 million and reserve forces are about 900,000 and the military,
notably the Air Force and the Navy, do not stock one firearm for each
member, I still suggest that the U.S civilian gun owner is probably
the largest market for the firearms industry.

>> The problem with gun crimes is that the numbers seem, always, to
>> support the author's contention.
>
>No, sorry, that's certainly not true.

Not so. The most common number that I see in print is the total of all
firearm related deaths in the U.S. which includes accidents, homicide
and suicides. Is that a logical conclusion?

In round terms firearms account for about 50% of all suicide deaths in
the U.S. Horrible! All guns must be banned! And 25% of them are caused
by hanging. Do we say Terrible! We must ban rope?

> > Yes, firearms homicide is about
>> 3.4/100,000 but suicide by firearms are about 6.69/100,000. Usually
>> these two numbers are added together and flaunted as a truly
>> horrifying figure.
>>
>> On the other hand the suicide rate in the U.S. seems to be
>> 12.6/100,000. So in fact the suicide by forearms is roughly about 1/2
>> of the total suicides.
>>
>> The question then is then what would the suicide rate be if there were
>> no guns?
>
>Well, I'd suggest comparing two countries that are similar in culture,
>economy, etc. but have wildly different gun laws. Perhaps compare the
>U.S. with Canada.

Ah, but is there a difference in the culture as it applies to
firearms? I suggest that as privately owned firearms were, by law,
mandated in the original colonies, and the weapon used in the initial
up-risings that resulted in the U.S.'s formation, it may be different.

Every kid that goes to school in the U.S. did, or does, learn of the
brave Minute Men who fired on the British in the first battle of the
Revolutionary War. Do they teach a similar story in Canadian schools?

I might add that Washington, D.C., has a gun ownership of 3.6/100.000
and a murder rate of 21.8/100,000. Homicide by firearm is 16.5.

On the other hand, Wyoming has a gun ownership of 59.7/100,000 and a
murder rate of 1.4 while homicide by firearm is 0.9.

American Culture?
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 14:28:37 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

>Per John B.:
>>The question then is then what would the suicide rate be if there were
>>no guns?
>>
>>Does one cry for control of bridges because people jump off them. Or
>>control of automobiles because people drive into bridge abutments at
>>100 mph? Or maybe licence purchasers and have a waiting period for
>>those that buy rope?
>
>Personally I have no use for guns and do not want them around my house.
>
>However there was a time in my life when I was more proficient than most
>with both long and short firearms and I fully understand that they are
>useful (maybe even necessary) tools for a certain subset of citizens.
>

The, supposedly, most accurate number I read is 30% own guns. Sub-set?

>That being said....
>
>The whole issue seems ripe for demagoguery to me and it seems like
>different sides have their own "Facts".
>
>Australia being a case in point...
>
>Perfectly reasonable-sounding people are writing that Australia's ban on
>semi-automatic firearms and pump-action shotguns (why pump-action
>shotguns and not pump-action rifles... I dunno) is responsible for
>Australia's lack of mass murders since Port Arthur.
>
>Other reasonable-sounding people write to the effect of "Absolutely
>Not".

I suspect that gun ownership, per se, is not the governing factor as,
at least in the U.S., the state with the highest firearm ownership is
among the lowest in gun homicides.

I suspect that the firearm advocate's argument that "guns don't kill
people, people kill people" is largely correct.

>Some of both sides are obviously spinmeisters.... but I would have to
>think that others are just giving honest opinions.
>
>I would like to hear somebody smart and knowledgeable - and without an
>ax to grind - comment on that situation.

As goes for religions, I don't think that there are any :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B.:

>I suspect that the firearm advocate's argument that "guns don't kill
>people, people kill people" is largely correct.

I am no firearm advocate, but that rings true with me.

OTOH, people with weapons that has to be reloaded after every six rounds
- and not via a clip - would seem obviously less capable (than people
with weapons that take two 30-round clips taped together) of killing
double-digit numbers of people before they are stopped.

OTOOH, firearms - including semi-automatics - have a *really* long
life...and, by all accounts I have read, there are an awful lot of them
in the USA..... couple that with long borders with Mexico and Canada and
I have to think the Australia situation is not scalable even without the
NRA and arms manufacturers paying off/threatening our legislators.
--
Pete Cresswell

[John B.]

In 2013 there were 11,208 homicides by firearm, 21,175 suicides and
505 accidents. Taking last to first there were 503 accidental deaths
due to firearms and 747 due to bicycles... it seems logical to say
that we must ban those deadly bicycles.

There were 21,175 suicides by firearm (Oh my Goodness) and there were
nearly 10,000 by hanging or asphyxiation. Just think, if we were to
ban rope there would be 10,000 people alive that are now dead and not
only that, that but there were nearly as many that hung themselves as
were killed in homicides by firearms.

Forget the swords as rope, ROPE I say, is far more deadly than them
there sharp things.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 04 Jul 2016 20:52:12 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

I think that the question of semi-automatic weapons is largely
imaginary. Example: I used to shoot Trap and one of the events is
"Doubles" where two targets are thrown at the same time and you
attempt to break them both. When I first started I had a Remington 12
gauge pump gun and was pretty successful. Later I bought an "over and
under" "Trap Gun" and in all honesty I see or feel no difference in
"pull the trigger, pump the gun, pull the trigger" on the Remington
and "pull the trigger, pull the trigger" on the new (expensive) Trap
Gun .

No difference in scores but the "trap gun" is certainly more expensive
and far more prestigious :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 07-05-2016 00:05, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 7/4/2016 5:04 PM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
>>
>>
>> After hearing claims that Australia's gun buyback caused violence rates
>> to soar and other claims that it caused them to drop, I did the
>> unthinkable: I attempted to find out the truth.
>>
>> From an apparently official website, I found that the rates did change
>> right after the buyback, and then went back to about the same as before.
>
> Got a link?

It was somewhere in the Australian Institute of Criminology, but it
basically said (with more detail) what Snopes said:
"The rates of various types of violent crimes ... have scarcely changed
at all,"

>> As usual, the demagogues on both sides were lying.
>
> http://www.snopes.com/crime/statistics/ausguns.asp

--
Wes Groleau

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:38:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >On 7/3/2016 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:
> >>
> >> The problem with gun crimes is that the numbers seem, always, to
> >> support the author's contention.
> >
> >No, sorry, that's certainly not true.
>
> Not so. The most common number that I see in print is the total of all
> firearm related deaths in the U.S. which includes accidents, homicide
> and suicides. Is that a logical conclusion?

Um... Is what a logical conclusion? Your paragraph seems quite unclear.

> In round terms firearms account for about 50% of all suicide deaths in
> the U.S. Horrible! All guns must be banned! And 25% of them are caused
> by hanging. Do we say Terrible! We must ban rope?

... and there are around 35,000 motorist deaths per year.
You can talk about banning cars too.

But I see a difference. Rope has hundreds of practical uses, and we
couldn't very well get along without it. Cars are essential for most people
in American society, and few can get along without them.

Rifles and shotguns are useful to hunters, and I have absolutely no problem
with their use in hunting. In fact, I wish we had a lot more hunting.

But almost all handguns and all rapid-fire long weapons are designed and
used for only killing people - or practicing for killing people. To me, that
is not something that everyone needs to do. In fact, one of the hallmarks
of civilization is that killing is not allowed by every one who cares to
buy a killing tool.

> >I'd suggest comparing two countries that are similar in culture,
> >economy, etc. but have wildly different gun laws. Perhaps compare the
> >U.S. with Canada.
>
> Ah, but is there a difference in the culture as it applies to
> firearms? I suggest that as privately owned firearms were, by law,
> mandated in the original colonies, and the weapon used in the initial
> up-risings that resulted in the U.S.'s formation, it may be different.

There are different cultures. As you note, there are different cultures within
the U.S. too. Personally, I'm not a fan of a culture that glorifies untrained,
undisciplined yahoos running around with deadly weaponry.

BTW, speaking of culture: It's my understanding that Switzerland has extremely
high gun ownership yet low gun deaths per capita. The difference seems to be
that Switzerland actually has a "well regulated militia," the part of our
2nd amendment that the gun nuts can't seem to comprehend.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I suppose that calls for controlling our borders. It's an idea I agree with.

Not that many guns come in via Canada, I think.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:58:43 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:54:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >Looks like there are, very roughly, 30,000 deaths by firearms annually
> >in the U.S. vs. roughly 1700 deaths by knives, swords, etc.
> >
> >There are places that put some limits on carrying edge tools about.
> >Naturally, there are those who argue against those limits. When swords
> >are outlawed, only outlaws will have swords, I guess.
>
> In 2013 there were 11,208 homicides by firearm, 21,175 suicides and
> 505 accidents. Taking last to first there were 503 accidental deaths
> due to firearms and 747 due to bicycles... it seems logical to say
> that we must ban those deadly bicycles.
>
> There were 21,175 suicides by firearm (Oh my Goodness) and there were
> nearly 10,000 by hanging or asphyxiation. Just think, if we were to
> ban rope there would be 10,000 people alive that are now dead and not
> only that, that but there were nearly as many that hung themselves as
> were killed in homicides by firearms.
>
> Forget the swords as rope, ROPE I say, is far more deadly than them
> there sharp things.

So if a guy walked toward you on the street carrying a rope, would you feel
the same as if a guy walked toward you carrying a sword? Really?

For me, rope would bring no worry. Swords and automatic rifles would be
a different matter.

BTW, I do know at least three guys with concealed carry licenses. Those three
have one thing in common: They are all timid and paranoid, the kind of guys
who are nervous about driving downtown at night. (I ride my bike there.)

And I'd never want any of them to be defending me. I think they'd be likely to
shoot me by mistake.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Yup, I've heard that. But for most of my A.F. career, while in the
U.S., I owned, and shot regularly, at least two pistols and sometimes
three and I normally fired 150 to 200 rounds a week. I never killed,
or practiced to kill anyone.

In fact the only person that I personally have known that actually had
killed anyone, or practiced to kill anyone, with a pistol, was one
State Policeman and he was a bit unique, even among policemen. In
contrast I have known two people that normally hunted white tailed
deer with a handgun.

I'm not saying that handguns aren't used to shoot people only that
during the period I lived in the U.S. but I never met them.

But "killing tools"? I haven't been in the U.S. for years but the last
time I was there you could buy an axe without a license. In fact I
just looked at Amazon and you can, for $66.88 buy an "Estwing 26 inch
Special Edition Axe" and they will deliver it to your door.

Now than, perhaps an axe isn't a stylish killing tool" in this modern
age but during the so called "Viking age" it was the most common
killing tool that the Norsemen carried.

In addition, the truly modern "bad guy" doesn't bother with a gun. Now
they use bombs - Just a day ago some bloke killed 200 people with a
single bomb. Try that with a pistol.

And, you can buy nitrogen fertilizer and diesel fuel nearly
everywhere....

So, one can buy a perfectly wonderful "Classic Chef's knife, a Wusthof
knife crafted in Solingen with 14 inch blade. that Jim Bowie would
have been proud to wear. One can buy the most popular killing tool
used by the Vikings,. One can buy the ingredients for a bomb big
enough to kill 200 people. One can buy a "long bow" that the English
used to decimate the French army. You can buy a baseball bat (aluminum
last longest I'm told). In short a great many things can be bought
freely in this "civilized country" that you describe as "killing
tools".

But you appear to have settled on only the one... I assume that in
the event that firearms were totally banned you believe that there
would be no more murders in America.

>> >I'd suggest comparing two countries that are similar in culture,
>> >economy, etc. but have wildly different gun laws. Perhaps compare the
>> >U.S. with Canada.
>>
>> Ah, but is there a difference in the culture as it applies to
>> firearms? I suggest that as privately owned firearms were, by law,
>> mandated in the original colonies, and the weapon used in the initial
>> up-risings that resulted in the U.S.'s formation, it may be different.
>
>There are different cultures. As you note, there are different cultures within
>the U.S. too. Personally, I'm not a fan of a culture that glorifies untrained,
>undisciplined yahoos running around with deadly weaponry.
>

As I don't live in the U.S. I can't speak for certain, but I believe,
from what I've read, that in order to get a permit to carry a pistol
one is required to attend, and graduate from an approved course on gun
safety and handling.

>BTW, speaking of culture: It's my understanding that Switzerland has extremely
>high gun ownership yet low gun deaths per capita. The difference seems to be
>that Switzerland actually has a "well regulated militia," the part of our
>2nd amendment that the gun nuts can't seem to comprehend.

From what I read gun "ownership" in Switzerland seems to be somewhat
confusing. There are documented, some 420,000 military firearms stored
in private housing, which, in an emergency, arm the Military Reserve,
however military issued ammunition for these weapons is not allowed.
Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military
pistols exempted from military service in private possession. Once
past these numbers you start to read the words "estimated" "seems to
be", etc.


>- Frank Krygowski
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:22:59 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:58:43 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 16:54:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>> >Looks like there are, very roughly, 30,000 deaths by firearms annually
>> >in the U.S. vs. roughly 1700 deaths by knives, swords, etc.
>> >
>> >There are places that put some limits on carrying edge tools about.
>> >Naturally, there are those who argue against those limits. When swords
>> >are outlawed, only outlaws will have swords, I guess.
>>
>> In 2013 there were 11,208 homicides by firearm, 21,175 suicides and
>> 505 accidents. Taking last to first there were 503 accidental deaths
>> due to firearms and 747 due to bicycles... it seems logical to say
>> that we must ban those deadly bicycles.
>>
>> There were 21,175 suicides by firearm (Oh my Goodness) and there were
>> nearly 10,000 by hanging or asphyxiation. Just think, if we were to
>> ban rope there would be 10,000 people alive that are now dead and not
>> only that, that but there were nearly as many that hung themselves as
>> were killed in homicides by firearms.
>>
>> Forget the swords as rope, ROPE I say, is far more deadly than them
>> there sharp things.
>
>So if a guy walked toward you on the street carrying a rope, would you feel
>the same as if a guy walked toward you carrying a sword? Really?

Actually I have seen a person walking on the street carrying a sword.
I can take you to the "Sunday Market" in Bangkok and more than one
stall sells what one might call "edged goods", cooking knives, big
knives, little bitty knives, machetes, even swords, You can buy a
sword if you want one. Just hand the guy the money and he will hand
you a sword, and you can carry it home with you and no one will say a
thing.

I worked a job in South Sumatra where every woman you saw walking
alone had a machete in her hand.

Strange you are so fearful. Or maybe all those guys with the concealed
carry permits are right. You do need something to protect yourself in
Modern America.

>For me, rope would bring no worry. Swords and automatic rifles would be
>a different matter.
>
>BTW, I do know at least three guys with concealed carry licenses. Those three
>have one thing in common: They are all timid and paranoid, the kind of guys
>who are nervous about driving downtown at night. (I ride my bike there.)

Sort of like you and the swords.

>And I'd never want any of them to be defending me. I think they'd be likely to
>shoot me by mistake.

Realistically that is probably correct. I read some statistics on
Police shootings. An 11 year New York study showed the Police hit the
target about 34% of the time when shooting at people and 55% of the
time when shooting at dogs. In 2006 the police fired at 60 people and
13 were killed.

On the other hand, my uncle was a Deputy Sheriff for at least 20 years
and never fired his pistol, except for shooting on a range. (and he
was a lousy shot :-)

[AMuzi]

The worldview and presupposed belief varies so much from one
person to another that public policy is, rightly, unsettled.

I listened early today to a survivor of the maniac at
Virginia Tech. She developed an application for a portable
telephone to alert the 911 organization and actually saw
that as a positive approach. Others could reasonably view
armed citizens as a more immediate solution. There's no
bridging that sort of philosophical rift.

[AMuzi]

On 7/4/2016 7:03 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:38:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 7/3/2016 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:

>>> I think it is logical to say that the NRA supports the firearm makers,
>>> but whether that is their prime activity I don't know. After all, if
>>> there were no firearm owners there wouldn't be a firearms industry :-)
>>
>> That's true only if you don't count the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines,
>> Coast Guard, National Guard and police forces as "owners."
>
> Well, yes. Sort of. For example the standard U.S. Military hand gun is
> a Biretta, an Italian make.

-snip-

um, Italian _design_.

US military issue are made here; congressional requirement.
Beretta, Glock etc have US facilities for military models.

IIRC Seals have wide latitude in choice of equipment
including firearms but there are so few Seals it's
numerically insignificant.

[AMuzi]

Frank I'm not trying to push anyone's buttons on this but my
AR15 fires exactly as fast as my old Police Special .38
revolver. Pull trigger once, fire one round. Girlfriend's
family has an 1892 Winchester lever action rifle which is
slower because you have to work the lever between shots but
it's not all that slower.

A rifle with 'furniture', i.e., a pickatinny holding scope &
laser, big plastic front grip and the very standard 30-round
magazine is viewed as "scary" as it reminds non-shooters of
fully automatic weapons featured prominently in movies and
news coverage of the 'spray and pray' technique (or lack
thereof). It is not. The incidence of full auto in USA is
vanishingly rare since their virtual ban in, what? 1937 was it?

Your friendly neighborhood drug dealer with a contraband
full auto pistol is indeed a potential danger (mostly
because those guys seldom hit their intended rival and seem
to more often hit the little girl on the 3d floor a block
away) but even those are much less common than imagination
infers.

[AMuzi]

On 7/4/2016 11:55 PM, John B. wrote:
> <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, July 4, 2016 at 8:03:33 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 10:38:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2016 9:44 PM, John B. wrote:

-snip OT firearms-

> Additionally, there are some 320,000 semi-auto rifles and military
> pistols exempted from military service in private possession. Once
> past these numbers you start to read the words "estimated" "seems to
> be", etc.

"estimated" Good for them.

There's a body of thought which holds that a country in
which the administration knows where to find each firearm
will not enjoy liberty very long. See also Kitty Werthmann's
famous eyewitness account.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per AMuzi:

> my
>AR15 fires exactly as fast as my old Police Special .38
>revolver. Pull trigger once, fire one round. Girlfriend's
>family has an 1892 Winchester lever action rifle which is
>slower because you have to work the lever between shots but
>it's not all that slower.

Overall rate of fire.

I've never fired an AR15, but everything I've read suggests the clips
hold 30 rounds. Tape two clips together back-to-back and you've got 60
rounds that can be fired in a very short period of time.

OTOH, the revolver, no matter how fast you can pull the trigger, needs a
reload after six rounds. Even with half-moon clips, I cannot imagine
the rate of fire being anything approaching the AR15.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Mike A Schwab]

On Saturday, July 2, 2016 at 1:21:24 PM UTC-5, Ian Field wrote:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be

In 1946, returning WW2 veterans fought the sheriff to stop long term ballot box stuffing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B.:

>I worked a job in South Sumatra where every woman you saw walking
>alone had a machete in her hand.
>
>Strange you are so fearful. Or maybe all those guys with the concealed
>carry permits are right. You do need something to protect yourself in
>Modern America.

If everybody's carrying something that's one thing.

But here in the USA, where nobody's carrying anything the buy who *is*
overtly carrying something is, IMHO, suspect of having something wrong
with them.

Couple weeks ago we were biking and stopped for coffee in a Dunkin'
Donuts. A young guy and his GF came up and sat in the patio outside.
Young Guy was carrying - something like a Glock 17 on his hip.

Everybody in the place that I watched appeared nervous and my son-in-law
was borderline scared.

Looking at Young Guy, my impression was that he was a few cards short of
a full deck.

Need something to protect myself in Modern America?.... maybe it depends
on where one lives. I'm older than dirt and never felt the need....
OTOH, I have mostly been fortunate enough to be able to choose the
places where I live.

Even in early 60's Hawaii - where one could get beaten half to death
almost anywhere anytime - I never thought about "carrying".

But enough people like Young Guy walking around.... and I might have to
consider it.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

How long have the Swiss enjoyed liberty? Since the 1500s? 1600s? I
forget. But evidence seems to indicate their plan is working.

William Tell had something to do with Swiss independence, although I
forget the details. They wrote an opera about him back in the early
1800s, but he was alive much earlier.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/5/2016 12:55 AM, John B. wrote:

> On Mon, 4 Jul 2016 20:10:32 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Rope has hundreds of practical uses, and we
>> couldn't very well get along without it. Cars are essential for most people
>> in American society, and few can get along without them.
>>
>> Rifles and shotguns are useful to hunters, and I have absolutely no problem
>> with their use in hunting. In fact, I wish we had a lot more hunting.
>>
>> But almost all handguns and all rapid-fire long weapons are designed and
>> used for only killing people - or practicing for killing people. To me, that
>> is not something that everyone needs to do. In fact, one of the hallmarks
>> of civilization is that killing is not allowed by every one who cares to
>> buy a killing tool.
>
> Yup, I've heard that. But for most of my A.F. career, while in the
> U.S., I owned, and shot regularly, at least two pistols and sometimes
> three and I normally fired 150 to 200 rounds a week. I never killed,
> or practiced to kill anyone.
>
> In fact the only person that I personally have known that actually had
> killed anyone, or practiced to kill anyone, with a pistol, was one
> State Policeman and he was a bit unique, even among policemen. In
> contrast I have known two people that normally hunted white tailed
> deer with a handgun.

I'm sorry, John, but if you knew any cops, they definitely practiced so
they could kill people with their sidearms if necessary. They use
targets representing human torsos, among other things. And there are
plenty of hero-wannabees who do the same.

Of course, there area many more hero-wannabees or carrying cowards who
don't practice at all, but they still buy their guns with the same idea
in mind. They're not thinking of shooting rattlesnakes in Chicago
streets. They have other prey in mind. (And they figure that just like
the heroes on TV, they can use their .45 to take out the guy on the
other team at 50 yards.)

> I'm not saying that handguns aren't used to shoot people only that
> during the period I lived in the U.S. but I never met them.

As you know, I give much more credence to data than to anecdotes.

> But "killing tools"? I haven't been in the U.S. for years but the last
> time I was there you could buy an axe without a license. In fact I
> just looked at Amazon and you can, for $66.88 buy an "Estwing 26 inch
> Special Edition Axe" and they will deliver it to your door.

Yeah, yeah. You forgot tweezers. You could tweeze someone to death,
given enough time.

When axe murders hit tens of thousands per year, you will have a valid
argument. But not until then.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Frank Krygowski:

>Yeah, yeah. You forgot tweezers. You could tweeze someone to death,
>given enough time.

That's pretty good.... got to remember that one... -)
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Mike A Schwab:

>In 1946, returning WW2 veterans fought the sheriff to stop long term ballot box stuffing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

"The sheriff and his deputies worked under a fee system whereby they
received money for every person they booked, incarcerated, and released;
the more arrests, the more money they made.[9] There was extensive "fee
grabbing" from tourists and travelers.[11] Buses passing through the
county were often pulled over and the passengers were randomly ticketed
for drunkenness, whether guilty or not.[9] Between 1936 and 1946 the
fees amounted to almost $300,000.[11]"

Per
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=300000&year1=1940&year2=2016
that was over 5 mil in 2016 dollars.

So I guess the geniuses in Ferguson weren't the first...
--
Pete Cresswell

[jbeattie]

FYI, it's a "magazine" and not a "clip," which is a different thing. http://www.gunception.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Magazine-vs-Clip-Firewoodhoardersclub.jpg There will be a test on this.

-- Jay Beattie.

[AMuzi]

At least once a day I read about people who probably should
not own a firearm:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/florida-woman-6-month-old-baby-beat-boyfriend-article-1.2699266

Then again there are people who probably should not have
made babies.

[jbeattie]

No, you need to have a spare "throw down" baby so when you attack someone with that baby, you can claim it's not yours -- "hey, that's not my baby. I've never seen that baby in my life! This is MY baby over here."

My son was complaining about being crushed on a ride by some local hero, and I advised him to get a throw-down dead squirrel for jamming into front wheels. "Oh dude, like you ran over a squirrel! Bummer. Catch you at the top." Maybe a couple in a jersey pocket. We just had a huge squirrel hatch over at the cemetery, so there are lots to be had -- some still pocket sized.

-- Jay Beattie.

[Mark J.]

This brings back fond memories, as far as I can remember accurately, of
Jobst's rants distinguishing "cranks" from "cranksets." Ahh, the good
old days on RBT.

Mark J.

[John B.]

Ah, but your 38 actually has a rate of fire of 750 rounds per minute,
albeit in 5 round bursts :-) (record set by Ed McGivern in 1932 - 5
rounds in 2/5ths of a second at 15 feet, palm sized group) about the
same, I think, as the specs on a M-16.

>A rifle with 'furniture', i.e., a pickatinny holding scope &
>laser, big plastic front grip and the very standard 30-round
>magazine is viewed as "scary" as it reminds non-shooters of
>fully automatic weapons featured prominently in movies and
>news coverage of the 'spray and pray' technique (or lack
>thereof). It is not. The incidence of full auto in USA is
>vanishingly rare since their virtual ban in, what? 1937 was it?
>
>Your friendly neighborhood drug dealer with a contraband
>full auto pistol is indeed a potential danger (mostly
>because those guys seldom hit their intended rival and seem
>to more often hit the little girl on the 3d floor a block
>away) but even those are much less common than imagination
>infers.

As bulls eye pistol shooter in my younger days I've occasionally seen
a Colt, model 1911 .45 pistol, shoot 5 rounds fully automatic. The
first round might hit the target, the second will be about 3 feet
higher and the remainder at increasing heights.

On the other hand, Dillinger had a fully automatic Colt 1911 with a
longer magazine and a hand grip under the barrel.
http://www.gundigest.com/article/a-full-auto-colt-1911-only-if-your-name-is-dillinger
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The first reference to William Tell seems to have been written in
1474, and gave, apparently, sufficient detail that it may well
describe, perhaps heroically, an actual event that happened about 100
years earlier. The actual event was stated to have happened on 18
November 1307 and Tell was described in some detail.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 10:15:51 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

If he had the gun hanging on his belt it is called "open carry" and is
authorized in at least 27 states. In 8 states it is forbidden and in
the remaining it is allowed under some conditions.

It is strange, but when I was growing up, in New Hampshire, one
occasionally saw someone on the street which a gun. I don't remember
people running and screaming to get away.

But actually I can't even remember anyone actually taking about guns.
People had them, people went hunting, and my grandfather was well
known in the village as a hunter and people used to stop by on a
winter evening to talking about hunting or fishing. But no one seemed
to be even interested in guns. A story, maybe, about how someone shot
a big buck up on Hardy Hill, but no mention of what they shot it with.

Now, from what I read, people have multiple "Assault Rifles" and never
go hunting. A fetish, perhaps? Do they sit around on winter evenings
stroking their M-16 and fantasize?

Different times, I guess.

--
cheers,

John B.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B.:

>But actually I can't even remember anyone actually taking about guns.
>People had them, people went hunting, and my grandfather was well
>known in the village as a hunter and people used to stop by on a
>winter evening to talking about hunting or fishing. But no one seemed
>to be even interested in guns. A story, maybe, about how someone shot
>a big buck up on Hardy Hill, but no mention of what they shot it with.

My take is that they were just another tool - as opposed to the magical
problem-solving talismans they are represented as in modern movies.

Hero runs through a hail of automatic weapons fire totally unscathed,
takes cover behind a piling or something, pulls his .44 magnum revolver,
and Bad Guys fall left and right.... Problem solved.

Dunno how many times I've watched that scene.


When I was a kid I was obese - got the crap beaten out of me
day-after-day. Arms and ribs were constantly covered in bruises.
Sometimes I used to hide by standing on the seat in a toilet stall
during recess.

To get rid of me over the summer, the parents shipped me off to a summer
camp. Summer camp had a rifle range.... and I spent day-after-day
there because shooting is something a fat kid can do. It carried over
into college when I was on the ROTC handgun team.

To cut to the chase, I had guns: shotguns, rifles, revolvers,
pistols.... And, even though I was getting beaten up on a daily basis, I
never thought of those guns as problem-solvers.... they were just
guns....and guns were tools for hunting and competitive shooting.
--
Pete Cresswell

[John B.]

Sorry, in my experience that is not a true statement. I grew up in a
small town in New England and we knew all the policemen, even the
State Policeman who was responsible for our "area". None of them were
what I would call component pistol shooters, nor did they practice.

When I was in Maine and the one cop I knew that did practice. I won
the Maine State Championship and was invited to shoot in a State
Police match held at the state prison. I won that match too, but with
the exception of one or two the level of accuracy was abysmal.

When I was on various Air Force pistol teams I was at the range a lot
and sometimes we had to wait for the Air Policemen to shoot. They had
to qualify at some period, quarterly perhaps. They shot at about 50
feet and had to hit the target, perhaps 2 ft x 2 ft square, with all
shots, and many of them had to requalify as they couldn't do it the
first time.

And, there was a New York City study made over a 11 year period that
stated categorically that policemen when firing at a humans hit the
target 34% of the time and when shooting dogs 55% of the time.

Expert Shots?

>Of course, there area many more hero-wannabees or carrying cowards who
>don't practice at all, but they still buy their guns with the same idea
>in mind. They're not thinking of shooting rattlesnakes in Chicago
>streets. They have other prey in mind. (And they figure that just like
>the heroes on TV, they can use their .45 to take out the guy on the
>other team at 50 yards.)
>
>> I'm not saying that handguns aren't used to shoot people only that
>> during the period I lived in the U.S. but I never met them.
>
>As you know, I give much more credence to data than to anecdotes.
>
>> But "killing tools"? I haven't been in the U.S. for years but the last
>> time I was there you could buy an axe without a license. In fact I
>> just looked at Amazon and you can, for $66.88 buy an "Estwing 26 inch
>> Special Edition Axe" and they will deliver it to your door.
>
>Yeah, yeah. You forgot tweezers. You could tweeze someone to death,
>given enough time.
>
>When axe murders hit tens of thousands per year, you will have a valid
>argument. But not until then.

Yes Frank of course you are correct. But on the other hand I suggest
that you are rationalizing the question since eliminating all the
guns, as essentially the Japanese have done, doesn't prevent murder
from happening, the Japanese just use a knife or a sword.

Nor does it prevent massacres. In 2001 a guy killed 8 and wounded 15
kids at a school in Osaka, Japan with a kitchen knife he bought on the
way to the school.

Of course if he had a gun he might have gotten a better score but that
is sort of redundant, isn't it? And while I realize that in America
bigger is better but isn't 8 dead kids enough to get someone's
attention?

So, do we ban kitchen knife

By the way another "Japanese" killing occurred in 1997 when the
severed head of a 12 year old boy was found in front of a school, in
Kobe, Japan. It was later found that two young boys had been murdered
by a 14 year old boy, apparently with a hand saw.

Subsequently a member of the Diet (Japan congress) called for
restricting objectionable content, stating, "Movies lacking any
literary or educational merit made for just showing cruel scenes...
Adults should be blamed for this".

So if we ban movies and hand saws there will be no more murders?

I do believe that Americans rationalize things to an extent that would
be termed silly in other countries. A guy, apparently staggering drunk
hits and kills five bicyclists and the news report says "accident"?

A woman buys a cup of hot coffee, drives away and later spills it in
her lap, and the company that sold the coffee is at fault?

What is next, in the civilized world? Andrew sells a bicycle and the
guy that buys it runs off the road and hits a tree and it is Andrew's
fault? It makes perfect sense, after all he shouldn't have sold a
bicycle that would go so fast?

Why don't y'all wake up to reality. Guns don't kill people, people
kill people, is fact, not fiction.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Goodness! You must be one of them fanatic people.

If you don't make the baby you don't get the aid. See, it is all very
logical. You got to have babies so you get the aid and you got to get
the aid to feed the children so having babies is the perfect child
health plan.

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Tue, 05 Jul 2016 23:00:43 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

As I have mentioned many times :-) I was brought up in rural New
England and I would guess that every farmer had a gun around
somewhere. When a fox gets in the chicken house it is futile to try
and debate the pros and cons of chicken dinners with him. However,
even in a debate, in a debate a 12 gauge shotgun usually serves as an
overwhelming argument :-)

But, yes, guns are just a tool. And, at least to my knowledge, no gun
has ever jumped up out of the corner and killed anyone.

And from what I've heard an aluminum baseball bat is the optimum
devise for leg breaking,. No blood trail :-)

--
cheers,

John B.

[Mike A Schwab]

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 2:19:40 AM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
<deleted>

> A woman buys a cup of hot coffee, drives away and later spills it in
> her lap, and the company that sold the coffee is at fault?

<deleted>
>
> --
> cheers,
>
> John B.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
Coffee at 180-190F is way too hot. Caused several cases of 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts. After store lost case at district level, temperature chain wide went down to 155F. Settled before appeal, undisclosed amount.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/6/2016 3:19 AM, John B. wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 11:06:19 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry, John, but if you knew any cops, they definitely practiced so
>> they could kill people with their sidearms if necessary. They use
>> targets representing human torsos, among other things. And there are
>> plenty of hero-wannabees who do the same.
>
> Sorry, in my experience that is not a true statement. I grew up in a
> small town in New England and we knew all the policemen, even the
> State Policeman who was responsible for our "area". None of them were
> what I would call component pistol shooters, nor did they practice.

Perhaps in New England in the 1950s or earlier, cops did not practice
shooting. Here they do. There's a police shooting range along the
river near the center of the city, and I've heard practice going on.
There's a shooting range a few miles away from my pleasant little
village, and the local cops sometimes practice there. I can't say
whether every cop practices frequently (I can ask about it, if you like)
but I know that shooting practice happens.

> When I was in Maine and the one cop I knew that did practice. I won
> the Maine State Championship and was invited to shoot in a State
> Police match held at the state prison. I won that match too, but with
> the exception of one or two the level of accuracy was abysmal.
>
> When I was on various Air Force pistol teams I was at the range a lot
> and sometimes we had to wait for the Air Policemen to shoot. They had
> to qualify at some period, quarterly perhaps. They shot at about 50
> feet and had to hit the target, perhaps 2 ft x 2 ft square, with all
> shots, and many of them had to requalify as they couldn't do it the
> first time.
>
> And, there was a New York City study made over a 11 year period that
> stated categorically that policemen when firing at a humans hit the
> target 34% of the time and when shooting dogs 55% of the time.
>
> Expert Shots?

I think your argument is drifting again. Your point about accuracy
doesn't disprove my point about the purpose of a sidearm.

To review: I said a hallmark of civilization is that killing is
normally prohibited, and the authority to do so when necessary is given
to people like police. You were claiming that a gun isn't a tool
designed for killing - a point of view that still strikes me as
ludicrous - and saying that police don't train to kill people. As in
this photo?

http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/courtesy-romesentinel.com_.jpeg

Nowhere did I say that cops are expert shots. It's not a necessary part
of my argument. And no matter how good you are with a handgun (I'm
lousy, BTW - I'm much, much better with a rifle) I doubt you'd do better
than 34% when the other guy is actively shooting at you.

>> When axe murders hit tens of thousands per year, you will have a valid
>> argument. But not until then.
>
> Yes Frank of course you are correct. But on the other hand I suggest
> that you are rationalizing the question since eliminating all the
> guns, as essentially the Japanese have done, doesn't prevent murder
> from happening, the Japanese just use a knife or a sword.

Japan's murder rate is 0.3 per 100,000 population. They have about 400
murders per year.

The United States' rate is about 4.0 per 100,000 population. We have
about 12 thousand murders per year.

I know there are other factors at play; but it would seem that knives
and swords are not as big a problem as guns.

> What is next, in the civilized world? Andrew sells a bicycle and the
> guy that buys it runs off the road and hits a tree and it is Andrew's
> fault? It makes perfect sense, after all he shouldn't have sold a
> bicycle that would go so fast?

As long as we're discussing the ludicrous, why didn't you bring up
murderers that use a bicycle as the killing tool? Here's a rather long
song about the demise of a guy who ruined an Irish music session by
playing his rattling spoons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_11JDYcZX44

Play it till the end. (I felt sorry for the Raleigh.)

> Why don't y'all wake up to reality. Guns don't kill people, people
> kill people, is fact, not fiction.

Isn't that also true for bombs? "When bombs are outlawed only outlaws
will have bombs!!!" Oh, and mustard gas, battle tanks, hand grenades,
bazookas...



--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

And you are an expert? I checked with the National Coffee Association
and they state that the best temperature for brewing coffee is "a
water temperature of 195 - 205 degrees (F).

But regardless. If one asks for "a cup of hot coffee" and they are
served hot coffee (with a warning on the cup that the coffee is hot)
and they accept the hot coffee and pay for the hot coffee, and they
then drive away in a car with the hot coffee, isn't it logical to
expect that they are happy that they have received what they asked
for?

And then when they then spill the hot coffee on them selves it is
obviously that it is someone else's fault.

And, after hearing continuously throughout the trial about how the
pittance that the woman asked for was less than McDonald world wide
income from one day's coffee sales they awarded 2.86 million dollars
to the old woman.

Even the judge though that this was ridicules and reduced the amount
640,000 dollars, about a quarter of what the jury awarded.

Subsequently court cases were judged differently. In McMahon v. Bunn
Matic Corporation (1998), Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Frank
Easterbrook wrote a unanimous opinion affirming dismissal of a similar
lawsuit against coffeemaker manufacturer Bunn-O-Matic...

In Bogle v. McDonald's Restaurants Ltd. (2002), a similar lawsuit in
England failed when the court rejected the claim that McDonald's could
have avoided injury by serving coffee at a lower temperature.

In a portion of the post that you haven't seen fit to included,I asked
if Andrew sells a guy a bicycle and they guy pays for the bicycle and
rides away on the bicycle is it Andrew's fault if he hits a tree?
"Oh... the bike went so fast"

And this was part of a post where I said something about Usians
rationalizing things until they arrive at an answer that they like to
hear, totally ignoring facts.

And I do believe that you have proved my point.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Nope. You argued that while rifles and shot guns might be used for
hunting but pistols were solely for killing people and I refuted that.
Then you say that cops practice shooting people, which again I refuted
saying that in my experience they didn't.

You now say that my experience doesn't count because you have a
different opinion (which you are prepared to check to see if it is
accurate).

Rather like the school yard argument, "My Daddy can lick your Daddy",
isn't it.

>To review: I said a hallmark of civilization is that killing is
>normally prohibited, and the authority to do so when necessary is given
>to people like police. You were claiming that a gun isn't a tool

I see. And the U.S. has this "hallmark of civilization"?

I ask as the murder rate in the Nation's Capital is 22.8/100,000 which
falls far short of all the other countries which are usually
considered civilized. Good Lord, even Thailand, where we are often
reminded of the high murder rate has only 3.9/100,000.
The U.N lists some 218 countries in the world. Of which only 14 have a
higher murder rate than the capital of the U.S.

Care to reiterate this "Hallmark of Civilization"?

>designed for killing - a point of view that still strikes me as
>ludicrous - and saying that police don't train to kill people. As in
>this photo?
>
>http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/courtesy-romesentinel.com_.jpeg
>
>Nowhere did I say that cops are expert shots. It's not a necessary part
>of my argument. And no matter how good you are with a handgun (I'm
>lousy, BTW - I'm much, much better with a rifle) I doubt you'd do better
>than 34% when the other guy is actively shooting at you.
>
>>> When axe murders hit tens of thousands per year, you will have a valid
>>> argument. But not until then.
>>
>> Yes Frank of course you are correct. But on the other hand I suggest
>> that you are rationalizing the question since eliminating all the
>> guns, as essentially the Japanese have done, doesn't prevent murder
>> from happening, the Japanese just use a knife or a sword.
>
>Japan's murder rate is 0.3 per 100,000 population. They have about 400
>murders per year.
>
>The United States' rate is about 4.0 per 100,000 population. We have
>about 12 thousand murders per year.
>
>I know there are other factors at play; but it would seem that knives
>and swords are not as big a problem as guns.

It does? Try Wyoming, with I believe the highest rate of gun ownership
in the U.S., and compare their murder rate with, oh say Washington,
D.C. where gun ownership is very low.

If guns are such a big problem than Wyoming, logically would have the
highest murder rate in the U.S. but it doesn't.

I think you are grabbing the wrong end of the stick.

>> What is next, in the civilized world? Andrew sells a bicycle and the
>> guy that buys it runs off the road and hits a tree and it is Andrew's
>> fault? It makes perfect sense, after all he shouldn't have sold a
>> bicycle that would go so fast?
>
>As long as we're discussing the ludicrous, why didn't you bring up
>murderers that use a bicycle as the killing tool? Here's a rather long
>song about the demise of a guy who ruined an Irish music session by
>playing his rattling spoons:
>
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_11JDYcZX44
>
>Play it till the end. (I felt sorry for the Raleigh.)
>
>> Why don't y'all wake up to reality. Guns don't kill people, people
>> kill people, is fact, not fiction.
>
>Isn't that also true for bombs? "When bombs are outlawed only outlaws
>will have bombs!!!" Oh, and mustard gas, battle tanks, hand grenades,
>bazookas...

Frank, it is true for all murders whether by rocks, guns, bombs or
baseball bats. It is always people that kill people.

I have never read, heard, or have seen on TV, of a gun that suddenly,
without human intervention, crawled out of the corner and started
shooting people, or a bomb the grew on a tree and blew up. Or even a
baseball bat that escaped from the bat bag and went leaping around the
stadium bashing people.
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/6/2016 10:13 PM, John B. wrote:

> On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:55:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>
>> I think your argument is drifting again. Your point about accuracy
>> doesn't disprove my point about the purpose of a sidearm.
>>
> Nope. You argued that while rifles and shot guns might be used for
> hunting but pistols were solely for killing people and I refuted that.
> Then you say that cops practice shooting people, which again I refuted
> saying that in my experience they didn't.

Then why get into the irrelevant point of police accuracy? It's a
distraction.

> You now say that my experience doesn't count because you have a
> different opinion (which you are prepared to check to see if it is
> accurate).

Your experience is old - rural New England in what, the 1950s? I'm
talking about cities and suburbs in 2016.

>> To review: I said a hallmark of civilization is that killing is
>> normally prohibited, and the authority to do so when necessary is given
>> to people like police. You were claiming that a gun isn't a tool
>
> I see. And the U.S. has this "hallmark of civilization"?
>
> I ask as the murder rate in the Nation's Capital is 22.8/100,000 which
> falls far short of all the other countries which are usually
> considered civilized. Good Lord, even Thailand, where we are often
> reminded of the high murder rate has only 3.9/100,000.
> The U.N lists some 218 countries in the world. Of which only 14 have a
> higher murder rate than the capital of the U.S.
>
> Care to reiterate this "Hallmark of Civilization"?

Thanks for making my point. The U.S., with its current irrational
attitude toward guns, has far worse murder rates than most other
westernized (or non-third-world) countries.

The intent of rational gun control is to get closer to real Civilization
- that is, to move away from a "wild west" mentality, where everyone has
to pack a sidearm and be ready to draw at a moment's notice. The U.S. is
not as civilized. And from what I read about the attitudes of those in
other countries, most seem to feel that the U.S. is not as civilized.

>
>> designed for killing - a point of view that still strikes me as
>> ludicrous - and saying that police don't train to kill people. As in
>> this photo?
>>
>> http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/courtesy-romesentinel.com_.jpeg
>>
>> Nowhere did I say that cops are expert shots. It's not a necessary part
>> of my argument. And no matter how good you are with a handgun (I'm
>> lousy, BTW - I'm much, much better with a rifle) I doubt you'd do better
>> than 34% when the other guy is actively shooting at you.
>>
>>>> When axe murders hit tens of thousands per year, you will have a valid
>>>> argument. But not until then.
>>>
>>> Yes Frank of course you are correct.

Thank you.

>>> But on the other hand I suggest
>>> that you are rationalizing the question since eliminating all the
>>> guns, as essentially the Japanese have done, doesn't prevent murder
>>> from happening, the Japanese just use a knife or a sword.

It's a simplistic trick to say "Your strategy seems to be only 95%
effective, therefore it's better to do nothing." But that's what you're
doing.

Nobody has _ever_ claimed that better control of guns would prevent
_all_ murder. So please avoid the straw man techniques.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Every bicycle shop principal I know[1] has been found
liable, to often seriously large amounts[2], with arguments
your average citizen would deem utterly ridiculous. I've
recounted a few here before, the worst centering, as the
coffee argument, on 'failure to warn' or some variant thereof.

[1] In my case $5 million for a product we did not sell, in
a good friend's case $2 million to the family of the dead
bicycle thief, and so on.
[2]and most other small business owners, probably only
because I do not know principals or upper management at
larger firms.

[Ian Field]

"John B." <slocom...@gmail.xyz> wrote in message
news:p27rnbll8j5u3mq4p...@4ax.com...

Not often that you make an accurate observation - but I'll have to give you
that one.......

[sms]

On 7/3/2016 12:33 PM, AMuzi wrote:

> On 7/2/2016 1:21 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be
>

> Actually, NRA has been a strong supporter of safety,
> competence/marksmanship and 2d Amendment rights for _all_ Americans for
> just ages.ISTR those images at the range are from real NRA safety
> classes. Their support for black shooters predates most other national
> groups.Not longer than the Republican party but 80 years before the
> Democrats were dragged kicking and screaming through the 1964 Civil
> Rights Act.
>
> Oh by the way violent or deadly incidents with the 200 million legal gun
> owners in USA (as opposed to stolen weapons, felon in possession,
> foreign national, etc etc) are much less common than you might imagine.
> Nearly all of us woke up today and didn't do anything spectacular with
> our firearms, as usual.

The real problem is toddlers
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/>.

[sms]

What's good about the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit is that you know that
whoever brings it up as an example of a legal system gone amok, is
extremely clueless.

Having been a foreman on a jury where damages where being sought, jurors
take their responsibility very seriously. Even in a very liberal city
like San Jose, none of the jurors in the trial I served on were anxious
to give the plaintiff any money.

[John B.]

As usual you are rationalizing things. Homicides with firearms in 2003
were 11,208 in the U.S. Suicides were 21,175 with firearms. Nearly
every anguished report of firearm deaths I read uses the number
32,383.

Now is that the real story. Had there been no guns available would all
those 21,125 suicides have gone quietly to bed and gotten up the next
morning bright eyed and bushy tailed, and ready for the new
millennium?

I don't think so and if you are honest you don't think so either. So
first of all we can either say the anti-gun crowd exaggerates or maybe
they just tell outright lies.

Now than, certainly 11,208 deaths aren't to be sneered at. But the
U.S. enjoyed some 42,884 deaths by automobile in 2003, the same year
that 11,208 died by homicide by firearms. Nearly 4 times as many dead
by auto as dead by gun.

But I don't read or hear about people that "won't have a car in the
house", I don't hear about people that "are afraid of cars".

But when I mention knives as a killing devise you denigrate that by
saying, "Oh! But there weren't many". But by the same token, compared
to automobiles there weren't many gun deaths...

Of course, homicide by forearm, at the least, sounds like the
perpetrator intended to do something while, of course, those killed in
automobiles were the victim of "accidents". Even the recent event of
the five bicyclists killed by, what appeared to be, drunk driver was
described, in the second paragraph that I read as an "accident".

But then, "In 2010, the Office of Inspector General for Health and
Human Services said that bad hospital care contributed to the deaths
of 180,000 patients in Medicare alone in a given year".

Look at that! 15 times the number of gun homicides. My goodness, I
just can't understand why someone doesn't go after those scoundrels.
It is amazing that what are described as "bad hospital care" is not
banned in a country with the most expensive medical; costs in the
world.

Instead that go about whining and moaning about those awful guns that
kill 1/15th of what hospitals do.

I am left with the feeling that guns have become a big hairy monster
that might just jump out and "get you" while automobiles? Well
everyone has one of those...
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

The "coffee case", while I have not read the actual transcript, seemed
to, in essence, be that McDonalds had a lot of money and therefore it
is only right that they pay for the woman's self inflected wounds.

I think that this a relatively modern concept, or at least when I was
growing up, I don't remember any particular sense of anyone owing
someone else simply because that they worked hard and had a bit more
than the other fellow. Quite the opposite. I can well remember my
parents laying down strict rules that I wasn't to play with the kids
of one specific family because, "they are on the town". In other words
they were getting some form of charity from the town, i.e., too lazy
to work.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:47:28 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Right, those little kids crawled down to the gun store and bought a
gun and shot someone. Yes siree, them toddlers are dangerous.

Thailand courts are in he midst of trying the parents with a crime in
that their kids shot someone and thus the parents failed to properly
teach their kids how to live in a civilized society.

One can only speculate what the effect would be if parents were found
partially at fault if their children commit a crime.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 15:07:49 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Yup, no question. And of course McDonalds being rich it was right and
proper that they should pay the woman, what was it? 2.9 million
dollars as a reward for her own, unassisted, act in spilling hot
coffee in her lap?

American justice at it's best!
--
cheers,

John B.

[jbeattie]

Neither hospitals nor cars are designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill -- it's a feature and not a defect. And some are designed to kill people in large quantity. I think it's a real problem when a lunatic can buy a light-weight carbine originally designed for military use which is capable of killing 30 people without even changing a magazine. Does anyone need a 30 round magazine? We can't control the lunatics, but we should at least make them change a mag after killing oh, let's say ten people -- plus or minus.

-- Jay Beattie

[jbeattie]

Read the clip, the toddlers are mostly killing themselves and their parents. So, I guess the surviving father can sue himself as the PR of his wife's estate and then claim his inheritance as a recovery in a personal injury action. Hey, that's a great way around estate taxes!

-- Jay Beattie.

[sms]

On 7/7/2016 5:32 PM, jbeattie wrote:

> Neither hospitals nor cars are designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill -- it's a feature and not a defect. And some are designed to kill people in large quantity. I think it's a real problem when a lunatic can buy a light-weight carbine originally designed for military use which is capable of killing 30 people without even changing a magazine. Does anyone need a 30 round magazine? We can't control the lunatics, but we should at least make them change a mag after killing oh, let's say ten people -- plus or minus.

The important thing is that the lunatic cannot buy large quantities of
Sudafed.

[sms]

On 7/7/2016 5:43 PM, jbeattie wrote:

<snip>

> Read the clip, the toddlers are mostly killing themselves and their parents. So, I guess the surviving father can sue himself as the PR of his wife's estate and then claim his inheritance as a recovery in a personal injury action. Hey, that's a great way around estate taxes!

Somehow I don't think that people stupid enough to allow toddlers to get
a hold of their gun have much in the way of estates to get out of paying
taxes on.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/7/2016 7:01 PM, John B. wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 00:25:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>>
>> It's a simplistic trick to say "Your strategy seems to be only 95%
>> effective, therefore it's better to do nothing." But that's what you're
>> doing.
>>
>> Nobody has _ever_ claimed that better control of guns would prevent
>> _all_ murder. So please avoid the straw man techniques.
>
> As usual you are rationalizing things. Homicides with firearms in 2003
> were 11,208 in the U.S. Suicides were 21,175 with firearms. Nearly
> every anguished report of firearm deaths I read uses the number
> 32,383.
>
> Now is that the real story. Had there been no guns available would all
> those 21,125 suicides have gone quietly to bed and gotten up the next
> morning bright eyed and bushy tailed, and ready for the new
> millennium?

It sounds like you need to read up on suicide. (And you need to drop
the trick of using absolutes - e.g. "all those suicides") Those who
work in the field of suicide prevention say that a great majority who
kill themselves by guns could indeed have been saved.

Try https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ for
example.

> Now than, certainly 11,208 deaths aren't to be sneered at. But the
> U.S. enjoyed some 42,884 deaths by automobile in 2003, the same year
> that 11,208 died by homicide by firearms. Nearly 4 times as many dead
> by auto as dead by gun.
>
> But I don't read or hear about people that "won't have a car in the
> house", I don't hear about people that "are afraid of cars".

But you do have people trying to reduce those deaths using many
strategies - strategies that would preserve the usefulness of cars, but
reduce their lethality.

By contrast, anything that would reduce guns' lethality is fodder for
more bile by the NRA and the gun nut crowd. Why? I suppose it's
because the _purpose_ of a gun is to be lethal - no matter how much you
pretend otherwise. And by God, those cowards who feel they need a
sidearm to get out of their home or car don't plan on hitting the bad
guy in the wrist. Center of mass, buddy.

>
> But when I mention knives as a killing devise you denigrate that by
> saying, "Oh! But there weren't many".

In the U.S. there are roughly five times as many gun murders as knife
murders. It's not even close, John.

If you want to talk about car murders and suicides instead of accidental
crashes, go ahead. But don't mix in accidents, medical crises, or other
causes of death. We're talking about people purposely killing people here.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/7/2016 8:13 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 14:47:28 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2016 12:33 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>> On 7/2/2016 1:21 PM, Ian Field wrote:
>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs&feature=youtu.be
>>>
>>> Actually, NRA has been a strong supporter of safety,
>>> competence/marksmanship and 2d Amendment rights for _all_ Americans for
>>> just ages.ISTR those images at the range are from real NRA safety
>>> classes. Their support for black shooters predates most other national
>>> groups.Not longer than the Republican party but 80 years before the
>>> Democrats were dragged kicking and screaming through the 1964 Civil
>>> Rights Act.
>>>
>>> Oh by the way violent or deadly incidents with the 200 million legal gun
>>> owners in USA (as opposed to stolen weapons, felon in possession,
>>> foreign national, etc etc) are much less common than you might imagine.
>>> Nearly all of us woke up today and didn't do anything spectacular with
>>> our firearms, as usual.
>>
>> The real problem is toddlers
>> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/>.
>
> Right, those little kids crawled down to the gun store and bought a
> gun and shot someone. Yes siree, them toddlers are dangerous.

They're dangerous when they get access to a gun their gun nut parents
have left lying around.

Do you think that's a good situation?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:43:06 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

Isn't that the explanation of the Yiddish term "chutzpah"? The bloke
that kills his mother and father then throws himself on the mercy of
the court? Because he is an orphan.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

No Frank, but either is boiling a pot of water on the stove with the
handle sticking out over the edge of the stove so the little toddler
reach up and grab it. Yet when my wife was pregnant with the first kid
we, being newbe's, bought a manual and it was in the manual.

If old Doc Spook had been a gun nut he'd probably put in a warning
about keeping the guns up on high shelves, or something.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 17:32:19 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

I don't think that is not really a correct statement, more of a
generalization that isn't universally true. See:
http://www.champchoice.com/store/Main.aspx?p=ItemDetailOptions&item=014057
Or is it "beyond reasonable doubt" that a bloke lashes out over $4,000
to buy a single shot .22 caliber rifle? To kill people?

But the remainder of your comment is topical I believe. Thailand, for
example defines firearms as "civilian" or "military" and while
technically possession of either without a license is a crime the
military weapon will usually be rewarded by a prison sentence while
the civilian weapon is likely to result in a fine, although that is up
to the court.

It would seem that some similar ruling could be constitutional without
destroying the "right" to legally own firearms.

If I remember correctly shotgun magazines were/are limited for hunting
and certainly New York had the Sullivan law, practically outlawing
pistols and machine funs have required special licensing for years.

The whole "assault rifle" thing seems rather ridicules. A cheaply
made, mass produced, rifle in a caliber that is plenty powerful to
kill woodchucks and jack rabbets, but not much else? And people lust
after them?

But, I suppose for some it is a sort of symbol of their manhood.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 22:35:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 7/7/2016 7:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 00:25:02 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's a simplistic trick to say "Your strategy seems to be only 95%
>>> effective, therefore it's better to do nothing." But that's what you're
>>> doing.
>>>
>>> Nobody has _ever_ claimed that better control of guns would prevent
>>> _all_ murder. So please avoid the straw man techniques.
>>
>> As usual you are rationalizing things. Homicides with firearms in 2003
>> were 11,208 in the U.S. Suicides were 21,175 with firearms. Nearly
>> every anguished report of firearm deaths I read uses the number
>> 32,383.
>>
>> Now is that the real story. Had there been no guns available would all
>> those 21,125 suicides have gone quietly to bed and gotten up the next
>> morning bright eyed and bushy tailed, and ready for the new
>> millennium?
>
>It sounds like you need to read up on suicide. (And you need to drop
>the trick of using absolutes - e.g. "all those suicides") Those who
>work in the field of suicide prevention say that a great majority who
>kill themselves by guns could indeed have been saved.
>
>Try https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ for
>example.

Well, according to http://www.griefspeaks.com/id121.html
80 percent that finally die have made a previous attempt. So, it would
appear that at least 80% of the total are pretty serious about it.

>> Now than, certainly 11,208 deaths aren't to be sneered at. But the
>> U.S. enjoyed some 42,884 deaths by automobile in 2003, the same year
>> that 11,208 died by homicide by firearms. Nearly 4 times as many dead
>> by auto as dead by gun.
>>
>> But I don't read or hear about people that "won't have a car in the
>> house", I don't hear about people that "are afraid of cars".
>
>But you do have people trying to reduce those deaths using many
>strategies - strategies that would preserve the usefulness of cars, but
>reduce their lethality.

Really? Seriously?

One, almost sure fire, method might be to limit the numbers of
automobiles on the road. Given that even a "poor" American family
owns, on the average, 1.9 automobiles and about 1/3rd of U.S. families
own more than 2, is this really, truly, a necessity? Or just another
sign of, what do they call it?, Conspicuous Consumption?

Not to mention that fewer cars equals less smog and a lower
consumption of hydro-carbons. Fewer automobiles also probably equate
to lower family debt, lower cost of highways and even, likely, safer
bicycle riding.

Can't be done? Well, perhaps in the U.S. but Singapore did it. So it
isn't impossible. Perhaps distasteful or, "We don't want to do that",
but not impossible.

>By contrast, anything that would reduce guns' lethality is fodder for
>more bile by the NRA and the gun nut crowd. Why? I suppose it's
>because the _purpose_ of a gun is to be lethal - no matter how much you
>pretend otherwise. And by God, those cowards who feel they need a
>sidearm to get out of their home or car don't plan on hitting the bad
>guy in the wrist. Center of mass, buddy.

As I have said, I had a reasonably successful career as a pistol
shooter and I never met anyone, that actually knew what he was doing,
that ever advocated shooting the gun out of someone's hand. It is, to
put it kindly, ludicrous.

I did know one guy, the state police cop I mentioned, that
deliberately shot a drunk who was waving a double-bitted felling axe
around and threatening to chop a woman's head off. The drunk was in a
one room cabin, with no lights, with the old girl he was threatening
to chop up and the cop kicked to door in and shot the drunk in the
leg. But a leg is quite a lot bigger than a hand :-)

>>
>> But when I mention knives as a killing devise you denigrate that by
>> saying, "Oh! But there weren't many".
>
>In the U.S. there are roughly five times as many gun murders as knife
>murders. It's not even close, John.

Yup, actually 5.something, at least the FBI says that, in 2012, there
were 8,855 firearm homicides and 1,589 with knives. But just because
there were only 1/5th the numbers do we ignore them, "Aw shoot! There
was only a few"?

But, after all, bicycle deaths were only 1/12th of the gun murders,
and only about half that of knife killings. So, we can probably
ignore them right along with the knives.

>If you want to talk about car murders and suicides instead of accidental
>crashes, go ahead. But don't mix in accidents, medical crises, or other
>causes of death. We're talking about people purposely killing people here.

I see. A car hitting a bicycle, another car, a bridge abutment, or
anything else, is an accident.... even though the driver may be
violating the law by being drunk?

That is probably true in a "civilized country" although there is such
a thing called felony murder which says that "when an offender kills
(regardless of intent to kill) in the commission of a dangerous or
enumerated crime (called a felony in some jurisdictions), he/she is
guilty of murder".

But I suppose that drunk driving isn't a felony...

But deliberate? Can a bloke nearly falling down drunk, knows he is
drunk, knows it is against the law, and does it anyway, deliberate? Or
just fooling around?

But for all the rhetoric you still don't appear to understand that
"guns" do not kill people, it is people that kill people. As I have
said, Wyoming has the highest number of guns in the U.S. and the
lowest murder rate.

If guns cause homicide one would expect that Wyoming would be leading
the nation in firearm homicides. But it isn't, It is Washington, D.C,
the nation's capital, that has that honor. With perhaps the lowest
percentage of gun ownership in the country.
--
cheers,

John B.

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B.:

> the woman's self inflected wounds.

There's a move about that suite. It's clled "Hot Coffed"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Coffee_(film)

Probably biased towards one view.... but it clearly shows that there is
far more to the event than our news org's sound bytes convey.
--
Pete Cresswell

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/8/2016 6:08 AM, John B. wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jul 2016 22:35:36 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 7/7/2016 7:01 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> Now is that the real story. Had there been no guns available would all
>>> those 21,125 suicides have gone quietly to bed and gotten up the next
>>> morning bright eyed and bushy tailed, and ready for the new
>>> millennium?
>>
>> It sounds like you need to read up on suicide. (And you need to drop
>> the trick of using absolutes - e.g. "all those suicides") Those who
>> work in the field of suicide prevention say that a great majority who
>> kill themselves by guns could indeed have been saved.
>>
>> Try https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/guns-and-suicide/ for
>> example.
>
> Well, according to http://www.griefspeaks.com/id121.html
> 80 percent that finally die have made a previous attempt. So, it would
> appear that at least 80% of the total are pretty serious about it.

Nope. You've made a math or logic mistake again. Specifically, you're
applying the percentage to the wrong population.

There are roughly a million suicide attempts per year in the U.S. Only
about 5% die. So by your own logic, only 5% could be said to be "pretty
serious about it."

BTW, I took an interest in this topic because I have one good friend who
attempted suicide, plus one not-too-distant relative who did kill
himself. Both were young adults at the time. The "failed" attempt was
with a knife, and that person is currently a 4.0 double major in
sciences in a good university. There's still the occasional battle with
depression, but no further suicide attempts. The successful suicide was
with a gun. It worked first time. Perhaps if that young guy had used a
knife, things would have turned out as well as for the other person.


>> But you do have people trying to reduce those [car] deaths using many

>> strategies - strategies that would preserve the usefulness of cars, but
>> reduce their lethality.
>
> Really? Seriously?
>
> One, almost sure fire, method might be to limit the numbers of
> automobiles on the road. Given that even a "poor" American family
> owns, on the average, 1.9 automobiles and about 1/3rd of U.S. families
> own more than 2, is this really, truly, a necessity? Or just another
> sign of, what do they call it?, Conspicuous Consumption?

That was a fine attempt at distraction. But you're trying to imply that
people are not attempting to reduce the lethality of cars because the
government doesn't limit the number of cars. You're ignoring seat
belts, air bags, anti-skid systems, traction control systems, stability
systems, crush zones, backup cameras, safety glass, collapsible steering
columns, side impact door beams, and much else.

Attempts to limit the danger of guns - by limits on magazine size, by
restricting certain types of bullets, etc. - are attacked as demonic by
the NRA and the gun nuts. They want to be able to kill, and kill
efficiently.

>>> But when I mention knives as a killing devise you denigrate that by
>>> saying, "Oh! But there weren't many".
>>
>> In the U.S. there are roughly five times as many gun murders as knife
>> murders. It's not even close, John.
>
> Yup, actually 5.something, at least the FBI says that, in 2012, there
> were 8,855 firearm homicides and 1,589 with knives. But just because
> there were only 1/5th the numbers do we ignore them, "Aw shoot! There
> was only a few"?

As a practical matter, given a problem with several causes or sources,
it's generally sensible to attack the biggest cause first. You can
lower your heating bills by replacing a 75% efficient furnace with a 95%
efficient furnace; but if you have a two foot square hole in your wall,
that's the place to start.

> But for all the rhetoric you still don't appear to understand that
> "guns" do not kill people, it is people that kill people.

If we're going to reduce this to aphorisms, I prefer the satiric one:
"When bombs are outlawed only outlaws will have bombs."

BTW, you live in Singapore and Thailand, is that right? Do you carry a
gun there? Are you allowed to? Are most people allowed to? How's that
working out?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

In Malaysia and Singapore the penalty for an illegal firearm, or drugs
in excess of a specified amount for that matter, is execution.

In Thailand as (didn't I mention?) they seem to divide firearms into
two groups, "War Weapons" and non-military, or maybe "Civilian
Weapons". As a general statement, those who are caught in possession
of war weapons seem to go to jail and those in possession of a
"civilian gun" seem to get fined.

But back to the matter in hand, and I seem to remember that I have
asked this question before and you have ignored it, but:

If guns are what cause the problem then please answer why, in Wyoming
with the highest gun ownership in the U.S., with 59.7% of the
population owning firearms, the gun homicide rate is 0.9/100,000?

In fact the ten states with the highest firearm ownership, of 50% or
more, all have a lower firearm murder rates lower than the District of
Columbia that has the lowest percentage.

So, as you object to my aphorism that "people kill people not guns
kill people", please advise what is the cause.

There is Wyoming where more of the population have guns than anywhere
in the U.S. and the one of the lowest gun homicide rate in the U.S.
and there is the District of Columbus with the lowest percentage of
firearm ownership in the U.S. and the highest gun homicide rate.

By the way, a more detailed look shows that D.C. has both the lowest
percentage of firearm ownership and the highest gun murder rate in the
nation and the lowest gun murder rate in the U.S. is Vermont with 42%
gun ownership and 0.3/100,000 gun homicide rate and New Hampshire (my
home state) with firearm ownership of 30% and a gun murder rate of
0.4/100,000.

Your assertion that guns cause death seems to be collapsing under the
weigh of numbers :-(

--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 09:33:01 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

I assume, although I do not know for sure, that the transcript of the
trial should be in the public domain so one could read the actual
record of what happened at the trial rather than a "second hand"
edition, so to speak.

As an aside, I view most "news" with a jaundiced eye as so much of it
is reported by "people that essentially don't know what they are
talking about" or "people with a viewpoint". But to be fair, so much
of the public is exactly the same :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/8/2016 8:15 PM, John B. wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 14:07:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> On 7/8/2016 6:08 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>> But for all the rhetoric you still don't appear to understand that
>>> "guns" do not kill people, it is people that kill people.
>>
>> If we're going to reduce this to aphorisms, I prefer the satiric one:
>> "When bombs are outlawed only outlaws will have bombs."
>>
>> BTW, you live in Singapore and Thailand, is that right? Do you carry a
>> gun there? Are you allowed to? Are most people allowed to? How's that
>> working out?
>
> In Malaysia and Singapore the penalty for an illegal firearm, or drugs
> in excess of a specified amount for that matter, is execution.
>
> In Thailand as (didn't I mention?) they seem to divide firearms into
> two groups, "War Weapons" and non-military, or maybe "Civilian
> Weapons". As a general statement, those who are caught in possession
> of war weapons seem to go to jail and those in possession of a
> "civilian gun" seem to get fined.

You forgot to answer several relevant questions.

1) Do you carry a gun there?

2) Are _you_ personally allowed to?

3) And how is that situation working out? IOW, what's the gun murder
rate per 100,000 population? What's the total murder rate per 100,000
population? How do those numbers compare with the U.S.

>
> But back to the matter in hand, and I seem to remember that I have
> asked this question before and you have ignored it, but:
>
> If guns are what cause the problem then please answer why, in Wyoming
> with the highest gun ownership in the U.S., with 59.7% of the
> population owning firearms, the gun homicide rate is 0.9/100,000?
>
> In fact the ten states with the highest firearm ownership, of 50% or
> more, all have a lower firearm murder rates lower than the District of
> Columbia that has the lowest percentage.
>
> So, as you object to my aphorism that "people kill people not guns
> kill people", please advise what is the cause.

Here's what I suspect:

The majority of gun deaths involve handguns, not rifles or shotguns. I
strongly suspect that in a state like Wyoming, the gun ownership numbers
are dominated by rifles and shotguns, not handguns. And the purpose of
those guns is usually hunting or shooting non-human "varmints."

(One friend of mine, until very recently, would travel from Ohio to
Wyoming for hunting. AFAIK he hasn't carried a handgun here nor there.)

That's not the only factor, I'm sure. There are big differences in
culture as well, many driven by differences in population density. But
firearms designed for hunting are different in design and intent, and
are not a huge part of the gun violence problem.

> By the way, a more detailed look shows that D.C. has both the lowest
> percentage of firearm ownership and the highest gun murder rate in the
> nation and the lowest gun murder rate in the U.S. is Vermont with 42%
> gun ownership and 0.3/100,000 gun homicide rate and New Hampshire (my
> home state) with firearm ownership of 30% and a gun murder rate of
> 0.4/100,000.
>
> Your assertion that guns cause death seems to be collapsing under the
> weigh of numbers :-(

Let's see if that's true. Give us the gun ownership rates and gun
murder rates for Singapore and Malaysia. Do you have them?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B.:

>As an aside, I view most "news" with a jaundiced eye as so much of it
>is reported by "people that essentially don't know what they are
>talking about" or "people with a viewpoint".

I would add to that what passes for "News" today is largely
entertainment.

There is a great Daily Show clip that captures the idea - which I can't
find.... but here's the source they used:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH68bSJXGE8
--
Pete Cresswell

[jbeattie]

On Friday, July 8, 2016 at 1:51:19 AM UTC-7, John B. wrote:
<snip>

> >Neither hospitals nor cars are designed to kill. Guns are designed to kill -- it's a feature and not a defect. And some are designed to kill people in large quantity. I think it's a real problem when a lunatic can buy a light-weight carbine originally designed for military use which is capable of killing 30 people without even changing a magazine. Does anyone need a 30 round magazine? We can't control the lunatics, but we should at least make them change a mag after killing oh, let's say ten people -- plus or minus.
> >
> >-- Jay Beattie
>
> I don't think that is not really a correct statement, more of a
> generalization that isn't universally true. See:
> http://www.champchoice.com/store/Main.aspx?p=ItemDetailOptions&item=014057
> Or is it "beyond reasonable doubt" that a bloke lashes out over $4,000
> to buy a single shot .22 caliber rifle? To kill people?
>
> But the remainder of your comment is topical I believe. Thailand, for
> example defines firearms as "civilian" or "military" and while
> technically possession of either without a license is a crime the
> military weapon will usually be rewarded by a prison sentence while
> the civilian weapon is likely to result in a fine, although that is up
> to the court.
>
> It would seem that some similar ruling could be constitutional without
> destroying the "right" to legally own firearms.
>
> If I remember correctly shotgun magazines were/are limited for hunting
> and certainly New York had the Sullivan law, practically outlawing
> pistols and machine funs have required special licensing for years.
>
> The whole "assault rifle" thing seems rather ridicules. A cheaply
> made, mass produced, rifle in a caliber that is plenty powerful to
> kill woodchucks and jack rabbets, but not much else? And people lust
> after them?
>
> But, I suppose for some it is a sort of symbol of their manhood.

The AR-15-ish rifles come in a lot of calibers these days, not just .223. And some are pretty accurate for a short-barreled rifle -- and even hunting-worthy, but if you need 30 shots to drop an Elk, you're Mr. Magoo. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/5f/ba/99/5fba99bf24aa2cdfcf023de4ac556066.jpg
And around here, you can just go hit one with your car. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/herd-elk-take-over-oregon-town-n10676
The Roosevelt Elk are just big vermin.

-- Jay Beattie.

[John B.]

On Fri, 08 Jul 2016 21:42:45 -0400, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid>
wrote:

Well, in a sense I guess it is. And a great deal of it also reflects
the thoughts or prejudices of either the writer or the station/editor.

I live in Thailand so please bear with my frequent mentions of the
place :-)

The present Thai government is the results of a military coup carried
out by the Thai Army in 2014. The Prime Minister is (strangely) the
General who was the leader of the coup.

Now, it is very common to read foreign "news" articles bemoaning the
fact that the Thai government is not elected but the results of a coup
- I believe the U.S. Ambassador even made some comments about it.
Terrible, terrible.

The fact of the matter is that the majority of the Thai population,
the people being governed, think he is doing a splendid job, the
businessmen that I know are happy, and I do talk to people.

In fact I have heard the remark that this is "the best government
Thailand has ever had".
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well I thought I did explain but for the record.

In Singapore I certainly because (1) if they catch you with a gun they
hang you, and (2) because I never felt the need to.

In Thailand I don't carry a gun and have never seen a need to.

The homicide rate (all types) in Singapore seems to be 0.3/100,000
The firearm homicide rate in Singapore is 0.02

The homicide rate in Thailand seems to be 3.9/100,000.
The firearms homicides - I cannot find a specific number but I did
find one article that stated that 66% of all murders were firearm
related.

>>
>> But back to the matter in hand, and I seem to remember that I have
>> asked this question before and you have ignored it, but:
>>
>> If guns are what cause the problem then please answer why, in Wyoming
>> with the highest gun ownership in the U.S., with 59.7% of the
>> population owning firearms, the gun homicide rate is 0.9/100,000?
>>
>> In fact the ten states with the highest firearm ownership, of 50% or
>> more, all have a lower firearm murder rates lower than the District of
>> Columbia that has the lowest percentage.
>>
>> So, as you object to my aphorism that "people kill people not guns
>> kill people", please advise what is the cause.
>
>Here's what I suspect:
>
>The majority of gun deaths involve handguns, not rifles or shotguns. I
>strongly suspect that in a state like Wyoming, the gun ownership numbers
>are dominated by rifles and shotguns, not handguns. And the purpose of
>those guns is usually hunting or shooting non-human "varmints."

I wouldn't argue with you other than to say that in previous posts you
did not specify pistols, rifles or shotguns.

>(One friend of mine, until very recently, would travel from Ohio to
>Wyoming for hunting. AFAIK he hasn't carried a handgun here nor there.)
>
>That's not the only factor, I'm sure. There are big differences in
>culture as well, many driven by differences in population density. But
>firearms designed for hunting are different in design and intent, and
>are not a huge part of the gun violence problem.

My own supposition is that gun ownership and gun homicides are only
loosely retaliated and something other then the mere fact of gun
ownership is likely to be the determining factor.

>> By the way, a more detailed look shows that D.C. has both the lowest
>> percentage of firearm ownership and the highest gun murder rate in the
>> nation and the lowest gun murder rate in the U.S. is Vermont with 42%
>> gun ownership and 0.3/100,000 gun homicide rate and New Hampshire (my
>> home state) with firearm ownership of 30% and a gun murder rate of
>> 0.4/100,000.
>>
>> Your assertion that guns cause death seems to be collapsing under the
>> weigh of numbers :-(
>
>Let's see if that's true. Give us the gun ownership rates and gun
>murder rates for Singapore and Malaysia. Do you have them?

I already posted them above. The murder rate for all homicides in
Singapore is 0.3/100,000, in Thailand seems to be 3.9/100,000. the
firearm homicide rate is 0.02 and something like 2.5.

Note that as I explained above firearm crimes are difficult to find in
Thai statistics.

As you mention above the society itself seems to have a definite
influence on crime. Singapore, for example, has little Volant crime,
or crime in general, while Thailand has a significant amount.

I was working up-country and one of the hands asked for Monday off. I
asked him why and it turned out that the family was visiting the
father who was in jail, in Bangkok, for murder. I asked him what
happened and he said that a guy stole his father's water buffalo so
his father hit him over the head with a piece of pipe and took his
buffalo back. Nothing to be shy about... perfectly normal thing to do.
--
cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016 20:00:50 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie <jbeat...@msn.com>
wrote:

Re accuracy, and caliber, I was speaking about the original, as
issued, M-16. As for magazine capacity I faintly remember qualifying
with the M-a6 when it was first issued to the A.F. and I think it had
a shorter magazine - maybe 20? At least I don't remember having any
problem in the prone position.

But I'm sure that and REAL GUNNER would have at least two 30 round
magazines tapped back to front for really serious shooting.

I've never seen an elk but I had a great uncle that used to shoot
white tailed deer with a .22 rifle. One shot, one deer. He probably
never ate beef or chicken.
--
cheers,

John B.

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 07-06-2016 08:19, John B. wrote:
> A woman buys a cup of hot coffee, drives away and later spills it in
> her lap, and the company that sold the coffee is at fault?

Given all the hyperbole on both sides of that, I don't know who was at
fault. But some reports say "no, she wasn't driving"

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 07-07-2016 12:50, AMuzi wrote:
> Every bicycle shop principal I know[1] has been found liable, to often
> seriously large amounts[2], with arguments your average citizen would
> deem utterly ridiculous. I've recounted a few here before, the worst
> centering, as the coffee argument, on 'failure to warn' or some variant
> thereof.

I once bought a bag of peanuts which carried the warning "Prepared in a
facility which handles peanuts."

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 07-08-2016 01:20, John B. wrote:
> Yup, no question. And of course McDonalds being rich it was right and
> proper that they should pay the woman, what was it? 2.9 million
> dollars as a reward for her own, unassisted, act in spilling hot
> coffee in her lap?

There were allegations that the lid wasn't put on right. Completely
impossible to prove or disprove, but I do know that those @$#%^@#$%^
lids are difficult to get fully seated.

--
Wes Groleau

[W. Wesley Groleau]

On 07-07-2016 05:25, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> Thanks for making my point. The U.S., with its current irrational
> attitude toward guns, has far worse murder rates than most other
> westernized (or non-third-world) countries.

When I try to verify statistics offered by either side, I usually find
that they are misreported. It is very easy, and often done, to cherry
pick places that show a correlation, positive OR negative, between guns
and murders or robberies. It is also easy to lie about it, because
other people on your side will gladly spread the lies for you without
checking.

> The intent of rational gun control is to get closer to real Civilization

Part of our gun-control problem is that neither side is rational.

--
Wes Groleau

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per John B.:

>I've never seen an elk but I had a great uncle that used to shoot
>white tailed deer with a .22 rifle. One shot, one deer. He probably
>never ate beef or chicken.

I get the impression that one of the largest bears killed in recent
times was shot with a .22 caliber round:
https://www.geocaching.com/geocache/GC538HQ_sg020-world-record-grizzly?guid=80627e09-7b3a-4e8f-877b-df07d7e42ee3
--
Pete Cresswell

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per jbeattie:

>but if you need 30 shots to drop an Elk, you're Mr. Magoo.

Maybe somebody more familiar with the current state of firearms can
answer this: what level of inconvenience would be imposed on civilian
owners by a ban on semi-automatic weapons and weapons that hold more
than six rounds in the magazine?

From my childhood hunting days, I have no recollection of people using
semi-automatic rifles. It was all bolt-action, pump-action, and
lever-action.

For handguns, IIRC, the primary criterion was reliability - and
revolvers were the rule.

Has something changed?
--
Pete Cresswell

[AMuzi]

I don't think so. I'm not an expert but my classic revolver
is extremely reliable, predictable, sturdy. Heavy though.

I have a lighter smaller .25 auto which seemed nice on first
impression but it's absolute crap, prone to random jams.

The specific point of contention is that the Founders put a
period after 'shall not be infringed'. Limiting magazine
capacity, limiting furniture (as some States have done) etc
are viewed, not unreasonably IMHO, as the camel's nose under
the tent. No one on either side of it feels that would be
the end of it and we'd end up like Austria under the Reich.
Some people see that as a Good Thing, others differ.

More significantly, there are a scary large number of
people, especially academics who ought know better, who want
limitation or removal of the 1st Amendment. None of the body
or Amendments were flighty or flippant IMHO but are poorly
understood now both in legislative history/intent and their
ramifications.

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

[Frank Krygowski]

Are you allowed to carry a gun in Thailand? Are most people allowed to
carry a gun in Thailand?

> The homicide rate (all types) in Singapore seems to be 0.3/100,000
> The firearm homicide rate in Singapore is 0.02

That's far lower than Wyoming, of course.

> The homicide rate in Thailand seems to be 3.9/100,000.
> The firearms homicides - I cannot find a specific number but I did
> find one article that stated that 66% of all murders were firearm
> related.

So we need to find out about the number of guns in Thailand, and the
laws regarding them.

>
>>>
>>> But back to the matter in hand, and I seem to remember that I have
>>> asked this question before and you have ignored it, but:
>>>
>>> If guns are what cause the problem then please answer why, in Wyoming
>>> with the highest gun ownership in the U.S., with 59.7% of the
>>> population owning firearms, the gun homicide rate is 0.9/100,000?
>>>
>>> In fact the ten states with the highest firearm ownership, of 50% or
>>> more, all have a lower firearm murder rates lower than the District of
>>> Columbia that has the lowest percentage.
>>>
>>> So, as you object to my aphorism that "people kill people not guns
>>> kill people", please advise what is the cause.
>>
>> Here's what I suspect:
>>
>> The majority of gun deaths involve handguns, not rifles or shotguns. I
>> strongly suspect that in a state like Wyoming, the gun ownership numbers
>> are dominated by rifles and shotguns, not handguns. And the purpose of
>> those guns is usually hunting or shooting non-human "varmints."
>
> I wouldn't argue with you other than to say that in previous posts you
> did not specify pistols, rifles or shotguns.

In previous posts I'm sure I've said that I have no problem with
hunting. (Actually, I think it should be promoted.) Since I didn't
restrict hunting to archery, you can infer that I have no problem with
the sorts of rifles and shotguns used for hunting.

>> (One friend of mine, until very recently, would travel from Ohio to
>> Wyoming for hunting. AFAIK he hasn't carried a handgun here nor there.)
>>
>> That's not the only factor, I'm sure. There are big differences in
>> culture as well, many driven by differences in population density. But
>> firearms designed for hunting are different in design and intent, and
>> are not a huge part of the gun violence problem.
>
> My own supposition is that gun ownership and gun homicides are only
> loosely retaliated and something other then the mere fact of gun
> ownership is likely to be the determining factor.

I'm sure there are many factors influencing homicide rates. But I'm
also sure that ownership of handguns is one of the most significant
factors. And ownership of rapid-fire military-style firearms is a
significant factor in the number killed in mass shootings.

See
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/nathanfurrjeffdyer/files/2016/07/Gun-Violence.jpg

> As you mention above the society itself seems to have a definite
> influence on crime. Singapore, for example, has little Volant crime,
> or crime in general, while Thailand has a significant amount.
>
> I was working up-country and one of the hands asked for Monday off. I
> asked him why and it turned out that the family was visiting the
> father who was in jail, in Bangkok, for murder. I asked him what
> happened and he said that a guy stole his father's water buffalo so
> his father hit him over the head with a piece of pipe and took his
> buffalo back. Nothing to be shy about... perfectly normal thing to do.

I enjoyed two books by Jared Diamond. _The World Until Yesterday_
discussed the tremendous differences between our modern society and the
conditions men lived under for the last 500,000 years.

One thing he mentioned was that for most of human history, murder was
shockingly common. For example, people lived in small tribes and
typically had uneasy relationships with other tribes. At one point,
Diamond said that if a man met an unknown man in the forest, he'd need
an excuse to NOT kill him.

The world's murder rate has been trending downward for millenia.
Supposedly, in Medieval Europe, it was something like ten times as high
as in today's U.S. And of course, the USA is not great in that regard.

I'd expect that in more isolated, rural areas of the world - areas where
governments had less control, and conditions were more like long ago -
murder rates would be higher.

But I don't think that lots guns in individual hands would make things
better. "Good guys with guns" really haven't done much, despite the hero
fantasies.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/9/2016 4:24 AM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> I've never seen an elk but I had a great uncle that used to shoot
> white tailed deer with a .22 rifle. One shot, one deer. He probably
> never ate beef or chicken.

That's pretty interesting to me. Any specifics on range (how far away
the deer were)? And on what part of the animal he targeted?

I can imagine a precise head shot with a .22 taking down a deer, but I'd
think anything else would result in a wounded animal dying slowly in
some hidden place, and eaten only by scavengers.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/9/2016 10:31 AM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 7/9/2016 8:43 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
>> Per jbeattie:
>>> but if you need 30 shots to drop an Elk, you're Mr. Magoo.
>>
>> Maybe somebody more familiar with the current state of firearms can
>> answer this: what level of inconvenience would be imposed on civilian
>> owners by a ban on semi-automatic weapons and weapons that hold more
>> than six rounds in the magazine?
>>
>> From my childhood hunting days, I have no recollection of people using
>> semi-automatic rifles. It was all bolt-action, pump-action, and
>> lever-action.
>>
>> For handguns, IIRC, the primary criterion was reliability - and
>> revolvers were the rule.
>>
>> Has something changed?
>>
>
> I don't think so. I'm not an expert but my classic revolver is extremely
> reliable, predictable, sturdy. Heavy though.
>
> I have a lighter smaller .25 auto which seemed nice on first impression
> but it's absolute crap, prone to random jams.
>
> The specific point of contention is that the Founders put a period after
> 'shall not be infringed'. Limiting magazine capacity, limiting
> furniture (as some States have done) etc are viewed, not unreasonably
> IMHO, as the camel's nose under the tent.

I wonder why the prohibition on private bombs and bazookas isn't viewed
the same way.

> No one on either side of it
> feels that would be the end of it and we'd end up like Austria under the
> Reich. Some people see that as a Good Thing, others differ.

Or more realistically, we might end up like Canada, with plenty of
hunting and far lower murder rates.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, here's the crux: Gun fans want to read
only the "shall not be infringed" phrase, while ignoring the "well
regulated militia" phrase.

It's not hard to learn what the founding fathers had in mind when they
wrote "well regulated militia." Read The Federalist Papers to see. It
most closely resembles the National Guard; or the situation in
Switzerland. Try this, for example:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

If a person wants to play with guns designed for people killing, I think
that person should enlist, go through rigorous training, be required to
show up when called, and be under the authority of a competent and
trained chain of command. You can be in the Reserves and do that, and I
admire those who choose that path.

I don't think every wannabe hero and gang banger should be able to buy
any gun and pretend to be a member of a "well regulated militia."

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 7/9/2016 5:03 AM, W. Wesley Groleau wrote:
> On 07-07-2016 05:25, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> Thanks for making my point. The U.S., with its current irrational
>> attitude toward guns, has far worse murder rates than most other
>> westernized (or non-third-world) countries.
>
> When I try to verify statistics offered by either side, I usually find
> that they are misreported. It is very easy, and often done, to cherry
> pick places that show a correlation, positive OR negative, between guns
> and murders or robberies. It is also easy to lie about it, because
> other people on your side will gladly spread the lies for you without
> checking.

Do you doubt that our murder rate, our gun murder rate and our gun death
rate are all far higher than Canada and all of western Europe?

>
>> The intent of rational gun control is to get closer to real Civilization
>
> Part of our gun-control problem is that neither side is rational.

I'm curious what you'd propose. It's hard to pretend that the gun policy
we have in the U.S. is working.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Ralph Barone]

I buy that brand exclusively, because it's less likely to contain melamine
:-)

[AMuzi]

It's working well, as intended.

No words of mine could compare to James Madison in
Federalist #46.