But it was the Guns!

[Tom Kunich]

According to Mexican government statistics, in the first month and a half of 2022, there were at least 33 mass murders in the country, with more than 147 victims,

For those unaware, Mexico has total gun control.

So much for Frank's narrative.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:21:39 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> According to Mexican government statistics, in the first month and a half of 2022, there were at least 33 mass murders in the country, with more than 147 victims,
>
> For those unaware, Mexico has total gun control.

Bullshit. "Each day the army gun store sells on average just 38 firearms to civilians, while an estimated 580
weapons are smuggled into Mexico from the United States."

Mexico has a neighbor to the north which is dominated by its gun industry. It sees Mexico as a great
market, legal or not.

If you're going to compare with another country, why not look to Canada?

- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

I see that someone answered my posting but since I can't see who they are I will assume that it is the usual bullshit from Russell. Yes Russell, Mexico has complete gun control and only the favored few are allowed to own guns, Sort of like the people here calling for gun control are mostly the people living in gated estates with armed guards.

"Do you know it is illegal to enter Mexico with a firearm without a permit from Secretariat of National Defense? Mexican customs agents do not issue gun permits; this permit must be processed before you attempt to cross the border with any type of firearm or ammunition. Anyone entering Mexico with a firearm or ammunition without a permit could face up to five years in prison.
All arms must be registered with the Secretariat of National Defense https://www.gob.mx/sedena in accordance with the Federal Law on Firearms and Explosives.
The Directorate of Commercialization of Arms and Munitions (Dirección de Comercialización de Armamento y Municiones – DCAM) located in Mexico City is the only legally authorized firearms store in the country.
The Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA), is responsible for issuing licenses and operating the General Directorate for the Federal Firearms Registry and Explosives Control.
Mexican citizens and legal foreign residents of Mexico may purchase firearms at DCAM provided they meet the qualifications.
Citizens may own a total of 10 registered firearms (nine long guns, one handgun) per household.
Businesses are not entitled to keep a firearm on the premises unless the business is also their residence.
Lost or stolen firearms must be reported to the Secretariat of Defense.
Owning a gun and carrying a firearm are two different scenarios in Mexico. You may own a registered firearm which must be kept in the home, but in order to carry it, you need a license, which is typically reserved for police, army, navy officials, some private security services and specialized sporting participants. Some rural landowners or politicians and affluent citizens, who feel they are in danger may be able to justify the need for a carry license.
Carry firearms licenses are issued to individuals who
are mentally and physically capable.
provide proof of employment.
served in the military.
do not have a criminal record.
do not use illegal drugs.
demonstrate a need to carry arms.
There are two types of carrying licenses, one for officials and one for private citizens. Officials hold their license for as long as they are in the position that required a firearms license, whereas individuals must renew their license every two years.
Licenses to carry arms for individuals are for the exclusive use of that individual.
Licenses may be granted to private individuals owning one or more firearms for target shooting or hunting, if the applicant is a member of a registered club or association and meets the requirements.
Transport of firearms: gun owners who belong to hunting or shooting clubs and keep registered firearms must maintain a valid permit and renew this permit each year in order to transport the guns to and from these activities.
The private sale and transfer of firearms must be authorized by Secretariat of National Defense. The buyer and seller must appear in person along with the weapon, to process the transaction.
Interesting fact: Mexico’s legal gun stores sold 52,147 firearms between 2009 and 2014. According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 73,684 of the 104,850 guns which were confiscated in Mexico from 2009-2014 originated from the U.S. and were illegally smuggled into Mexico. https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674570.pdf

Find out more about Mexico’s Firearms-Control Legislation and Policy:

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/mexico.php#Gun "

[Tim R]

I know it's stupid to enter a religious debate, but:

The rabid gun crowd in the US buys a lot of guns because they've been whipped into a frenzy of fear of crime. (not counting hunters, competitive shooters, and nut jobs who want to overthrow a govt or something).

The anti gun crowd in the US wants to ban guns, starting with what is the scariest to them (but not actually the most dangerous) because they've been whipped into a frenzy of fear of crime.

Neither fear has any factual basis. In the US if you avoid the 3 S's you have almost no chance of being shot. You're probably more likely to be hit by a meteorite. (Don't do Stupid things, don't go Stupid places, don't hang out with Stupid people.)

[Frank Krygowski]

Did anyone explain that to the schoolkids killed in their classrooms?
How about the shoppers killed in New York State? There were mass murders
of people in a synagogue, people in church. There were concert attendees
in Las Vegas. The list goes on and on and on, but only in the United
States. Other country's lists are very, very short.

There are many, many other examples of people in America who were doing
none of the stupid things you mentioned, but were attacked en masse. I
don't feel we should just chalk those up to bad luck, or pretend that
most other prosperous countries haven't found the rather obvious solutions.



--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

The majority of guns sold is in this country are overwhelmingly sold to collectors who have that as a hobby. The same way I collected bicycles for so many years. Some people have one gun and do nothing but target shoot with it. Some hunt though there is a lot less of that now. No one wants to go down to the target range because they are afraid that every detail of their lives will be recorded and maybe that is what's happening. You are recorded on cameras coming and going.

What makes ANYONE think that they will end crime by banning guns? In the bay area now you can be shot simply driving down the freeway and George Gascone, the San Francisco DA, is releasing people guilty of homicide from jail without bail. 50 assistant DA's have resigned because of what he's doing which makes it easier for him to release extremely violent criminals back into society. Do you suppose that being without a gun with people like that in office is the time to ban guns?

[Tom Kunich]

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:20:39 PM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:

Also go down the page and look at the recording. https://proudamerican.site/video-us-soldier-says-things-arent-adding-up-with-uvalde-shooter-and-his-pricey-weapons/

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

"don't go Stupid places"
Agreed. Don't go to the grocery store if you live in Buffalo. And definitely not in a black part of town. And if you are a little kid, 7-10 years old, make sure you do not go to school if you live in Texas. Or Florida or Connecticut. And if you live in El Paso, do not go to WalMart. I know there are many people who say don't go to WalMart no matter what. But I like WalMart. But don't go to one in El Paso. And as Frank said, don't go to concerts. Funny how the NRA banned guns at their meeting. Odd how a pro guns for everyone organization bans guns at their own meeting. And as Frank said, don't go to churches. Especially not in Texas or South Carolina. And don't go to the theatre in Colorado. And don't go to McDonalds in San Diego. And be danged sure you never ever go to college. Especially not in Texas or Virginia. And also be sure not to go to the Post Office in Oklahoma. And of course there have been many shootings at work too. I have forgotten most of them but I do remember many employees, or ex employees, shooting up their place of work. One was at a UPS office. And if you are a politician, don't go to campaign stops. Remember Gabby Giffords in Arizona being shot. Not killed. Others were killed though. And don't go to Army bases either. Remember that Fort Hood mass murder down in Texas in 2009? And there was also a killing in a Navy Yard building in Washington DC. So don't go on Navy property either. And this past weekend also indicated you should not go to medical clinics. At least not in Tulsa.

Lets list all the stupid places not to go so you don't get mass killed.
1. church
2. grocery store
3. WalMart general merchandise store
4. McDonalds
5. movie theatre
6. concerts
7. Post Office
8. work
9. NRA meetings
10. political meetings
11.school (elementary, junior high, high school, college)
12. bars/nightclubs (of course these are the bad places no one should ever go anyway, so this is one of your Stupid places)
13. military bases (Army and Navy, maybe the Marines and Air Force are safe)
14. medical clinics, hospitals

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

Please list the non Stupid places to go to avoid a mass murder. We're waiting.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

Tommy, tommy, tommy. Just another right wing nut job website. Typical of you.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 3:17:16 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 12:20:39 PM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I know it's stupid to enter a religious debate, but:
> >
> > The rabid gun crowd in the US buys a lot of guns because they've been whipped into a frenzy of fear of crime. (not counting hunters, competitive shooters, and nut jobs who want to overthrow a govt or something).
> >
> > The anti gun crowd in the US wants to ban guns, starting with what is the scariest to them (but not actually the most dangerous) because they've been whipped into a frenzy of fear of crime.
> >
> > Neither fear has any factual basis. In the US if you avoid the 3 S's you have almost no chance of being shot. You're probably more likely to be hit by a meteorite. (Don't do Stupid things, don't go Stupid places, don't hang out with Stupid people.)
> The majority of guns sold is in this country are overwhelmingly sold to collectors who have that as a hobby.

Collectors? I guess there have been a whole lot of new gun collectors in the past few years. I am not sure if this is brand new gun sales, or sales of all guns, new and used. And for fun, there is also a chart on this website showing the number of firearm deaths each year too. Not surprising, the gun sales and gun deaths follow the exact same trend. More gun sales, more gun deaths. Causation or correlation?
https://www.safehome.org/data/firearms-guns-statistics/

You are really stupid Tommy boy. But you and everyone else already knows that.

[ritzann...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 1:38:52 PM UTC-5, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 9:21:39 AM UTC-7, Tom Kunich wrote:
> > According to Mexican government statistics, in the first month and a half of 2022, there were at least 33 mass murders in the country, with more than 147 victims,
> >
> > For those unaware, Mexico has total gun control.
> >
> > So much for Frank's narrative.
> I see that someone answered my posting but since I can't see who they are I will assume that it is the usual bullshit from Russell. Yes Russell, Mexico has complete gun control and only the favored few are allowed to own guns, Sort of like the people here calling for gun control are mostly the people living in gated estates with armed guards.
>
> "Do you know it is illegal to enter Mexico with a firearm without a permit from Secretariat of National Defense? Mexican customs agents do not issue gun permits; this permit must be processed before you attempt to cross the border with any type of firearm or ammunition. Anyone entering Mexico with a firearm or ammunition without a permit could face up to five years in prison.

Seems very reasonable to not allow foreigners to bring a gun into the country. Tell us Tommy, do you have this Republican desire to enter Mexico with your guns and murder Mexicans? Why?

> All arms must be registered with the Secretariat of National Defense https://www.gob.mx/sedena in accordance with the Federal Law on Firearms and Explosives.

Registering guns. Seems very reasonable to me. We register cars and houses.

> The Directorate of Commercialization of Arms and Munitions (Dirección de Comercialización de Armamento y Municiones – DCAM) located in Mexico City is the only legally authorized firearms store in the country.

I will give you this one. It does seem odd that the only legal place to buy guns is one store in the capital city. Of course, 90% of all Mexicans live within a few miles of Mexico City. So it is an inconvenience, but not really. Having that place in Mexico City as the only gun store only affects a small percentage of the people in Mexico. For distance traveled.

> The Secretariat of National Defense (SEDENA), is responsible for issuing licenses and operating the General Directorate for the Federal Firearms Registry and Explosives Control.

License to own a gun. Very reasonable. You have to have a license to drive a car. Or fly an airplane. Or hunting license to shoot animals.

> Mexican citizens and legal foreign residents of Mexico may purchase firearms at DCAM provided they meet the qualifications.

Qualifications for buying a gun. Imagine that. Not allowing deadly weapons to be owned by unqualified people. Kind of like we regulate and qualify doctors and dentists. And look at qualifications for getting into the military. Or test kids to be sure they are smart enough to get into college. We do not regulate the sale of bicycle tools. But I would sure like a qualified bike mechanic to work on my bike if I take it into a shop.

> Citizens may own a total of 10 registered firearms (nine long guns, one handgun) per household.

OK. We could argue the number of guns owned and what type. I am willing to listen to many different proposals.

> Businesses are not entitled to keep a firearm on the premises unless the business is also their residence.

OK. Makes sense. Personal residence implies life. Business implies money. Gun for protection of personal life at home. OK. Gun for protection of money at business. No.

> Lost or stolen firearms must be reported to the Secretariat of Defense.

Gosh. This sounds so reasonable its almost unbelievable. Reporting lost or stolen firearms? Wow.

> Owning a gun and carrying a firearm are two different scenarios in Mexico. You may own a registered firearm which must be kept in the home, but in order to carry it, you need a license, which is typically reserved for police, army, navy officials, some private security services and specialized sporting participants. Some rural landowners or politicians and affluent citizens, who feel they are in danger may be able to justify the need for a carry license.

Makes sense. Guns for personal protection of home. And family at home. OK. Carrying said gun for protection of home when you are not at home? Gun is to protect home. Why do you need gun if you are not at home? So no carrying guns around. Very reasonable.

> Carry firearms licenses are issued to individuals who
> are mentally and physically capable.
> provide proof of employment.
> served in the military.
> do not have a criminal record.
> do not use illegal drugs.
> demonstrate a need to carry arms.

Mentally capable? Physically capable? You have to meet those requirements to carry a gun in Mexico? Who would have thought. Not sure about the proof of employment part. Having a job is not that critical. Served in the military. I might argue on this one. But its also kind of reasonable too. No criminals carrying guns? Crazy. No drug users? Crazy. Need to carry a firearm. Seems reasonable to have a need if you request to carry a dangerous weapon. Logical to me.

> There are two types of carrying licenses, one for officials and one for private citizens. Officials hold their license for as long as they are in the position that required a firearms license, whereas individuals must renew their license every two years.

Two year renewal. Drivers license must be renewed every four years in US. So cutting the renewal time in half sems reasonable.

> Licenses to carry arms for individuals are for the exclusive use of that individual.

Kind of like drivers license. The license only applies to the name on the card. Just because you have a license does not mean your wife or brother or cousin can drive. Do you think one license should apply to everyone in a whole family? Or the whole block? Or the whole city? Or should they be one license per one person. Kind of like voting. On person can't cast votes for every family member or the whole city.

> Licenses may be granted to private individuals owning one or more firearms for target shooting or hunting, if the applicant is a member of a registered club or association and meets the requirements.

I could argue with this one. But target shooting and hunting are valid reasons to own guns. But for target shooting or hunting, I could own my own land and thus no reason to join a club. Maybe change this to you have to prove you have enough private land to not join a club. But for all city folks, they can't target or hunt on their house city lot, so they have to go to a target range club or a hunting club ground.

> Transport of firearms: gun owners who belong to hunting or shooting clubs and keep registered firearms must maintain a valid permit and renew this permit each year in order to transport the guns to and from these activities.

Seems reasonable.

> The private sale and transfer of firearms must be authorized by Secretariat of National Defense. The buyer and seller must appear in person along with the weapon, to process the transaction.

Seems reasonable. Keep the guns out of the wrong person's hands. Various drugs are monitored for sale to individuals.

> Interesting fact: Mexico’s legal gun stores sold 52,147 firearms between 2009 and 2014. According to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 73,684 of the 104,850 guns which were confiscated in Mexico from 2009-2014 originated from the U.S. and were illegally smuggled into Mexico. https://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674570.pdf

Frank mentioned this. All the guns used in murders and drug killings came from the USA. Who are happy to help murder citizens of foreign countries and bypass their laws. Its similar to the USA. California may have good gun laws. But with open borders to other states, then guns can be bought in those less restrictive states and transported to California for use in crimes.

Its also kind of funny right now the Republicans are screaming about all the illegal aliens from Mexico coming into the USA across the border. But those same Republicans are completely silent on all of the guns being smuggled into Mexico to commit crimes. Republicans seem to be very happy to give guns to Mexican gangs to murder other Mexicans. As long as its done down in Mexico, its great.

[Tim R]

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:50:13 PM UTC-4, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Lets list all the stupid places not to go so you don't get mass killed.
> 1. church
> 2. grocery store
> 3. WalMart general merchandise store
> 4. McDonalds
> 5. movie theatre
> 6. concerts
> 7. Post Office
> 8. work
> 9. NRA meetings
> 10. political meetings
> 11.school (elementary, junior high, high school, college)
> 12. bars/nightclubs (of course these are the bad places no one should ever go anyway, so this is one of your Stupid places)
> 13. military bases (Army and Navy, maybe the Marines and Air Force are safe)
> 14. medical clinics, hospitals
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>
> Please list the non Stupid places to go to avoid a mass murder. We're waiting.

Classic statistical error, made by every conspiracy theorist out there, including some in my family, and every religious wacko.

the error: anything that is possible is equally probable. Yes, people have been killed in all those places. And the probability for any one person in any one of those places is so low as to be pretty much nonexistent.

Humans do a very bad job of evaluating risk, and a much better job of thinking about horrible consequences, with the result that our good intentions do more harm than good.

The US has a gun suicide rate of 7.12 per 100,000 population, and a gun homicide rate of 4.46 per 100,000. (worldpopulationreview.com) That's much higher than other industrialized countries, we are kind of an outlier on the violence end. Germany has a homicide rate of .99/100,000. But it's still an extremely low risk.

And the most scary gun of all, the AR15 style? It accounts for about 0.25% of those 4.46 homicides per 100,000. In other words, it doesn't even contribute noise. Yet it is the ONLY gun being considered for a ban. With 20 million in circulation, you could argue that it might be the safest gun in actual use, even though it is the most terrifying in potential. But we don't want to actually stop gun crime, we just want to FEEL safe. And we don't care about the majority of shootings, just the mass ones that get the publicity.

Take schools. Roughly 130,000 in the country, now that the smaller ones have all consolidated. there used to be twice that many. Shootings per year, 10 to 20, this year is off the charts at 27. Still the chance of your school being one is very low. But we do active shooter drills in every school, traumatizing all 50.8 million children. Intentions are good, but the harm is real.

I contend that focusing on the assault rifle style is inherently racist. That's the gun that is scary to white people who have their kids in safe schools and send them to concerts. People of color are shot with 9 mm handguns.

We aren't as violent a nation as we used to be. Today it's half what it was in 1973 (10/100k). And by the way it was 60/100k for males of color. But we're far more scared now.

The US is a nation that solves problems with violence. There is no easy quick fix but there are ways to bring the trend down.

[Tom Kunich]

I have shown over and over that Russell who has presented himself as an accountant and if that were truly the case would of needs be educated both in arithmetic and statistical analysis over and over shows that he cannot even add two one digit numbers together successfully.

Any opinions he offers have about as much value as a wheat grass tab on a ping pong table - a problem rather than a solution.

Any statistics he presents he confirms a complete lack of understanding of.

I have yet to see him ever post anything worthy of the slightest consideration.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/6/2022 11:06 AM, Tim R wrote:
> On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 4:50:13 PM UTC-4, russell...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Lets list all the stupid places not to go so you don't get mass killed.
>> 1. church
>> 2. grocery store
>> 3. WalMart general merchandise store
>> 4. McDonalds
>> 5. movie theatre
>> 6. concerts
>> 7. Post Office
>> 8. work
>> 9. NRA meetings
>> 10. political meetings
>> 11.school (elementary, junior high, high school, college)
>> 12. bars/nightclubs (of course these are the bad places no one should ever go anyway, so this is one of your Stupid places)
>> 13. military bases (Army and Navy, maybe the Marines and Air Force are safe)
>> 14. medical clinics, hospitals
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States
>>
>> Please list the non Stupid places to go to avoid a mass murder. We're waiting.
>
> Classic statistical error, made by every conspiracy theorist out there, including some in my family, and every religious wacko.
>
> the error: anything that is possible is equally probable. Yes, people have been killed in all those places. And the probability for any one person in any one of those places is so low as to be pretty much nonexistent.
>
> Humans do a very bad job of evaluating risk, and a much better job of thinking about horrible consequences, with the result that our good intentions do more harm than good.

Ah, "more harm than good."

Care to compare the "harm" with the "good" of widespread ownership of
rapid fire weaponry by untrained citizens? Nobody in this extended
discussion has yet listed a true practical advantage of letting a
30-year-old living in his mom's basement have a rapid-fire arsenal.

> The US has a gun suicide rate of 7.12 per 100,000 population, and a gun homicide rate of 4.46 per 100,000. (worldpopulationreview.com) That's much higher than other industrialized countries, we are kind of an outlier on the violence end. Germany has a homicide rate of .99/100,000. But it's still an extremely low risk.

I'm very much in favor of evaluating risks. But I like to complicate
things by also incorporating benefits in the analysis. The families and
friends of dead schoolkids don't get much comfort from "Hey, this
doesn't happen very often to most kids."

> And the most scary gun of all, the AR15 style? It accounts for about 0.25% of those 4.46 homicides per 100,000. In other words, it doesn't even contribute noise. Yet it is the ONLY gun being considered for a ban.

False. Many other guns are effectively banned in the U.S. Many other
guns are banned in many other countries. "Being considered" is merely a
nod to our country's gun-nut-dominated politics.

> The US is a nation that solves problems with violence. There is no easy quick fix but there are ways to bring the trend down.

Indeed. But by gosh, we don't dare propose restricting tools of mass
murder! That's way, way too radical for some!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim R]

Frank,
Google pareto principle.

Every year in the US, on average, there are 14,000 gun homicides and 22,000 gun suicides.

Of those, approximately .25% of the homicides and .1% of the suicides can be attributed to semiauto rifles.

If we're serious about doing something worthwhile about gun violence, why would we start with the weapon that causes the least harm? It's not even the most common gun used in mass shootings. See here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

There are 20 million of these rifles in circulation and they are hardly ever used in crime. I don't own one and don't shoot competitively, so loss of these doesn't affect me personally; I just object to the stupidity in both demonizing them and lauding their ban as the solution to our gun problem.

And you don't own one, so you have no problem taking away everybody else's so you can feel (but not BE) safer, right? That's part of my irritation, the number of people who are quick to ban something they don't want themselves. There's no cost to that, no skin in the game.

[AMuzi]

It's those magic lead-spraying AR-15 rifles! Oh, it's
actually not.

It's those NRA members! Hmmm. there were probably some
criminal NRA members over the years, but mostly not.

This only happens in USA! Hmm, sure about that?
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251458/nigeria-catholic-church-attack

We need more regulation and background checks! The most
recent two murderers were both cleared by The Authorities
and legally purchased their firearms.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom Kunich]

Let's remember some of the things that Frank believes -
1. That because of income disparity that anyone that makes money should have it taken away and given to him.
2. That covid-19 that I have shown the CDC page statistics that plainly shows that only some 8000 people were killed by it and that in late March and early April of 2020 and since then has had a rate of covid-19 deaths BELOW the levels of respiratory deaths from 2015-2019 is such a serious killer that we should shut down the entire American economy and force the wearing of useless masks upon children that are known to cause severe psychological problems in young children who absolutely must have face to face contact to develop normal social skills.
3. That climate change is real and is caused by CO2 despite my careful analysis using NOAA information that show that CO2 cannot be responsible for ANY global warming whatsoever and that the heat in the lower atmosphere is due to three things - the output of the Sun, The recovery of energy due to the variation of the orbit of the Aerth around the Sun and the density of the atmosphere. None of which can be effected by man.
4. That Americans are somehow different from every other human being on this planet and they kill each other in numbers that make anywhere else in the world look safer than the inside of a safe with the door closed. Frank hasn't the slightest interest in who is actually doing the killing or why. He has said that all of these millions of deaths are by Americans and American only. When presented with actual proof that everything he believes is wrong, he simply claims that it is all a lie and that he is correct and all other agencies are wrong. And he proves it with a Joe Biden speech.

That Franki has long ago become completely unhinged and that he has no more opinion worthy of expressing than my brother the Flat Earth believer and the moon landing was filmed on a sound stage in Hollywood and that the CIA blew up the Trade Towers kind of guy should lead anyone to ignore anything he says. But despite these signs of mental duress, he is supported by Russell, Flunky, Scharf and until lately when he has gone too far, John and Jeff. Which says a lot about the first three.

[Tim R]

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> Let's remember some of the things that Frank believes -

> 1-4 snipped

I don't know what Frank believes but whatever it is it can't be as outrageously wrong as your 4. Seriously, you don't believe that, do you? you're just winding us up?

[Tom Kunich]

Tim, I don't know how often you drop in here but this in essence is EXACTLY what Frank has said.

Until he got on the "guns are an American peculiarity killing everyone" he was on the Income Disparity and that "Billionaires aren't paying their share." Tell me - their share of WHAT? They pay large companies of accountants to pay every cent they legally owe and not one cent they don't. Before this was this long involved argument about climate change and AS USUAL, he made absolutely no attempt to understand the problem IF ANY and instead parroted the leftist line that came originally from the "environmentalists" whose claim was that there were too many people on this planet and that we would all starve if we didn't put poison into the food we were sending the third world!

As for covid, I've shown the CDC statistics until I'm blue in the face and not only does no one believe the CDC themselves, but they say that I am lying about the very CDC statistics I post.

Now by all means tell me where you believe me to be wrong.

[John B.]

But it is the easy way out. And the simplest. Somebody shoots some
people. Granted it is a terrible thing? But why did he/she do it?

Well, the easiest thing to say is "well he had a gun" but is that the
"reason"? After all something like 40% of the U.S. population has
access to guns, some 133 million people. If "the gun made him do it"
then whole swaths of the U.S. would be people less (multiply 20 deaths
times 133 million) so obviously it wasn't the gun's fault, as it were.

So why did an 18 year old school dropout spend $3,000 to buy two guns,
apparently to shoot up a school? Nobody knows, and at least from
reading the news, nobody cares or is even trying to find out.

Just take the easy road and blame the gun..
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

But Andrew, it is the easy way to explain what happened. "Oh he had a
gun". See now I'm a pundit and I have explained it all and I can go
prancing around waving my arms and shouting "See! I know!"

But reality is that there are something like 133 million people in the
U.S. that have access to guns and if the reason for shootings is
simply, "Oh he had a gun" then logically there would be vast areas in
the U.S. totally denuded of people - multiply 133 million times, say,
20 dead.

But how to explain the fact that an 18 year old school dropout spent
$3000 on two rifles and shot up a school? Hard to do and "It was the
gun made him do it" is such an easy excuse.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

I'd rather Mr Krygowski speak for himself.

Regarding Mr Kunich's discourteous portrayal (or parody) of
Mr Krygowski's thought, item #4 begins as a paraphrase of Mr
Biden's speech about a week ago.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:14:22 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>
> It's those magic lead-spraying AR-15 rifles! Oh, it's
> actually not.

Those are the tools used in most large mass shootings. In other cases,
shooters use other rapid fire weapons that I find as objectionable. They have
no practical advantages not related to killing people.

> It's those NRA members! Hmmm. there were probably some
> criminal NRA members over the years, but mostly not.

Right, most NRA members are fine people, other than being naive enough to fund
politicians who block reasonable laws desired by a majority of NRA members.

> This only happens in USA! Hmm, sure about that?
> https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251458/nigeria-catholic-church-attack

What a cute straw man! But nobody here has said that. What _has_ been said is that the
U.S. is an extreme and unique outlier among prosperous developed countries. That's why
you haven't given us a dozen Canadian examples.

> We need more regulation and background checks! The most
> recent two murderers were both cleared by The Authorities
> and legally purchased their firearms.

Amazing! You apparently cannot see that proves the current system is insufficient!

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

Tom has a great reluctance to accurately quote me. He loves to argue against what he _wishes_ I said.

Look up "straw man argument." It's Tom's go-to trick, and it's a sign of mental weakness.

- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Background checks, or in legal terms 'prior restraint', were
constitutionally suspect from the get-go. And more, as with
all bureaucratic schemes, fanatically effective at punishing
the innocent but woefully ineffective at solving actual
problems.

c.f.:
Nowadays with so any criminals driving stolen cars
unmolested, cars with faded paper plates or no plates at all
are seen regularly (noticed on improper lane change,
running lights and so on). If you neglect to add your new
current year license sticker to the plate on the car you
own, you'll be promptly stopped and fined. This is the
bureaucracy at work. As ever.

[John B.]

Yessiree Bob! Listen to old Frankie, who knows something about them
there gun things. Yup, they got a hole in the barrel and damned if
they don't go BANG! when you pull the trigger (well some of hem just
go bang).

And them AR things look so scary. Ohooo just looking at the pictures
is frightening.

But in all sincerity Frankie, aren't you ashamed flaunting your
ignorance like this? For the whole world to see?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:28:37 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 9:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:14:22 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >>
> >> It's those magic lead-spraying AR-15 rifles! Oh, it's
> >> actually not.
> >
> > Those are the tools used in most large mass shootings. In other cases,
> > shooters use other rapid fire weapons that I find as objectionable. They have
> > no practical advantages not related to killing people.
> >
> >> It's those NRA members! Hmmm. there were probably some
> >> criminal NRA members over the years, but mostly not.
> >
> > Right, most NRA members are fine people, other than being naive enough to fund
> > politicians who block reasonable laws desired by a majority of NRA members.
> >
> >> This only happens in USA! Hmm, sure about that?
> >> https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/251458/nigeria-catholic-church-attack
> >
> > What a cute straw man! But nobody here has said that. What _has_ been said is that the
> > U.S. is an extreme and unique outlier among prosperous developed countries. That's why
> > you haven't given us a dozen Canadian examples.
> >
> >> We need more regulation and background checks! The most
> >> recent two murderers were both cleared by The Authorities
> >> and legally purchased their firearms.
> >
> > Amazing! You apparently cannot see that proves the current system is insufficient!
> >
> > - Frank Krygowski
> >
> Background checks, or in legal terms 'prior restraint', were
> constitutionally suspect from the get-go.

As I recall, they did pass muster, although gun lovers "suspect" anything that might
be inconvenient for their hobby.

>And more, as with
> all bureaucratic schemes, fanatically effective at punishing
> the innocent but woefully ineffective at solving actual
> problems.
>
> c.f.:
> Nowadays with so any criminals driving stolen cars
> unmolested, cars with faded paper plates or no plates at all
> are seen regularly (noticed on improper lane change,
> running lights and so on). If you neglect to add your new
> current year license sticker to the plate on the car you
> own, you'll be promptly stopped and fined. This is the
> bureaucracy at work. As ever.

It's your usual theme: Laws are imperfect. For example, bike shops are broken into despite
the fact it's illegal. Hey, let's repeal that law.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:36:20 PM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
>
> Yessiree Bob! Listen to old Frankie, who knows something about them
> there gun things. Yup, they got a hole in the barrel and damned if
> they don't go BANG! when you pull the trigger (well some of hem just
> go bang).
>
> And them AR things look so scary. Ohooo just looking at the pictures
> is frightening.
>
> But in all sincerity Frankie, aren't you ashamed flaunting your
> ignorance like this? For the whole world to see?

I see you failed at logic so you fall back on mockery. Give it up, John. You're
becoming a Tommy clone.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Well Frankie, I will admit it is hard not to ridicule someone making
ridiculous statements.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Ah but... you forget that people just like Frank convinced the Nation
to outlaw the alcoholic beverages. On December 18, 1917 the 18th
Amendment to the Constitution was adopted and Yes Sir, the Demon Booze
was eliminated.

And the results? Well, alcohol consumption apparently did decease (it
was said) but it also gave rise to an increase in crime that certainly
was the greatest the U.S. had/has ever experienced. So great, in fact
that the U.S. Government had to go, hat in hand, to a Sicilian chap
"Charles Luciano" who was serving a 30 to 50 year prison term, to help
them prevent sabotage "on the docks" and, some say, assistance in the
invasion of Sicily. there is some debate about how much assistance was
actually given but fact is that Mr. Luciano was pardoned in January
1946.

On December 5, 1933. the Twenty-first Amendment was adopted which
removed the 18th.

As George Santayana wrote, "Those who cannot remember the past are
condemned to repeat it.”
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tim R]

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:14:42 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:14:22 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> >
> > It's those magic lead-spraying AR-15 rifles! Oh, it's
> > actually not.
> Those are the tools used in most large mass shootings. In other cases,
> shooters use other rapid fire weapons that I find as objectionable. They have
> no practical advantages not related to killing people.

Nope. 76% of mass shootings are with handguns. Do your research before making claims. Or read what I posted.

No practical advantages? then why do all competitive rifle shooters use them? Not for every event of course, they would be totally wrong for cowboy action competitions!

But the real reason I continue these useless debates is that there actually is a homicide problem in the US, of which gun homicide is a large subset, and the statistics tell you a semiauto rifle ban has zero chance of making an impact. It's a way of feeling good that we've done something, anything, and not caring it's totally ineffective.

But real solutions take intelligent thought, hard work, and are long term efforts, and the will is not there in the US. (also the political system makes it somewhat hard to do any of that)

[Tom Kunich]

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 5:09:30 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/6/2022 5:15 PM, Tim R wrote:
> > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:54:28 PM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Let's remember some of the things that Frank believes -
> >> 1-4 snipped
> >
> > I don't know what Frank believes but whatever it is it can't be as outrageously wrong as your 4. Seriously, you don't believe that, do you? you're just winding us up?
> >
> I'd rather Mr Krygowski speak for himself.
>
> Regarding Mr Kunich's discourteous portrayal (or parody) of
> Mr Krygowski's thought, item #4 begins as a paraphrase of Mr
> Biden's speech about a week ago.

I am certainly not going to dig back through all of the lies and misconceptions that Frank has posted in the past. But his claims about idiotic things like "who needs an AR-15 which is a weapon of war is exactly his thoughts. He has said things like this again and again. Of course - no one SHOULD need a weapon of war but the 2nd Amendment was added directly to the Constitution because of people like Frank. Had Frank the power he would seize every single gun in this country in one second and he has effectively said so. The 2nd Amendment is so that when he tries we can simply kill him and be rid of the problem. Is the 2nd Amendment somehow less important than the 1st because it is number 2? Perhaps Amendments ending slavery aren't as important because they were not in the first place?

Here is what happens when you allow creatures like Frank the slightest power - the Alameda Board of Supervisor has commanded that all residents of Alameda County wear masks while indoors. That this is an direct infringement of the 1st Amendment doesn't bother them in the least because they got away with it before. The fucking Clinton Lawyer lied directly to the Congress and was entirely absolved of that crime simply because he was tried in a DC court with a jury composed of 100% Democrats including those who donated heavily to the Democrat Party in DC. When the Justice System and the very basis of the legal apparatus is twisted to protect one group over another, no country can remain free.

Every time you support the continuous lies that Frank tries to pass on as some sort of Truth from his point of view, you add one more nail into the coffin of the USA.

[Tom Kunich]

Tim you have been the target of absolute lies from the Democrats. An unarmed populace is one that is already enslaved and if you don't believe that you better puruse history a little deeper.

https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2021/04/debunking-every-major-myth-about-mass-shootings-in-america/

https://nypost.com/2018/08/30/america-doesnt-actually-lead-the-world-in-mass-shootings/

What is the upshot? That mass murders as defined by the Slime Stream Media is neither limited to this country or unusual. As someone said, using the definition of mass murder that people like Frank are overanxious for you to believe - that is nothing more than one normal weekend in Chicago.

You don't believe in violence against the people making these false claims? Well then, why do you think that the founders of this country added the 2nd Amendment?

[Frank Krygowski]

I do it with facts and data.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim R]

On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 10:08:13 AM UTC-4, cycl...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 4:10:36 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:14:42 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:14:22 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's those magic lead-spraying AR-15 rifles! Oh, it's
> > > > actually not.
> > > Those are the tools used in most large mass shootings. In other cases,
> > > shooters use other rapid fire weapons that I find as objectionable. They have
> > > no practical advantages not related to killing people.
> > Nope. 76% of mass shootings are with handguns. Do your research before making claims. Or read what I posted.
> >
> > No practical advantages? then why do all competitive rifle shooters use them? Not for every event of course, they would be totally wrong for cowboy action competitions!
> >
> > But the real reason I continue these useless debates is that there actually is a homicide problem in the US, of which gun homicide is a large subset, and the statistics tell you a semiauto rifle ban has zero chance of making an impact. It's a way of feeling good that we've done something, anything, and not caring it's totally ineffective.
> >
> > But real solutions take intelligent thought, hard work, and are long term efforts, and the will is not there in the US. (also the political system makes it somewhat hard to do any of that)
> Tim you have been the target of absolute lies from the Democrats. An unarmed populace is one that is already enslaved and if you don't believe that you better puruse history a little deeper.
>

Tom,
They hide the secrets from you.............................in books.
Unfair I know, but there it is.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/7/2022 7:10 AM, Tim R wrote:
> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 10:14:42 PM UTC-4, frkr...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 4:14:22 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> It's those magic lead-spraying AR-15 rifles! Oh, it's
>>> actually not.
>> Those are the tools used in most large mass shootings. In other cases,
>> shooters use other rapid fire weapons that I find as objectionable. They have
>> no practical advantages not related to killing people.
>
> Nope. 76% of mass shootings are with handguns. Do your research before making claims.

Tim, you've just made an elementary logic mistake. "Rapid fire weapons"
and "Handguns" are NOT mutually exclusive categories.

Perhaps you should keep that in mind, the re-read my posts.

> No practical advantages? then why do all competitive rifle shooters use them? Not for every event of course, they would be totally wrong for cowboy action competitions!

I stand by the statement "No practical advantages." I suggest it's up to
you to state their significant practical advantages.

I'll grant that _if_ there happens to be a gun event where the objective
is to put 30 rounds into a human silhouette target within 15 seconds, a
military style weapon would be a necessity. But what's the practical
advantage of such a contest? It would make no more sense than the
machine gun shoot to which I declined an invitation. It would be macho
fantasy horseshit.

Of all the guys I've shot with, none ever fired more than about two
rounds in 15 seconds. Neither did I. The object was always accuracy, not
"how fast can you blast."

> But the real reason I continue these useless debates is that there actually is a homicide problem in the US, of which gun homicide is a large subset, and the statistics tell you a semiauto rifle ban has zero chance of making an impact. It's a way of feeling good that we've done something, anything, and not caring it's totally ineffective.

If semiauto rifles were in fact banned, the last several large massacres
would probably not have happened. If all rapid fire weapons were banned,
gun deaths would be far lower.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/7/2022 12:24 AM, John B. wrote:
>
> Ah but... you forget that people just like Frank convinced the Nation
> to outlaw the alcoholic beverages.

Wrong. Not people "just like Frank."

John, just like Tom, you've got nothing left but slurs. You should be
embarrassed.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/7/2022 10:08 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> An unarmed populace is one that is already enslaved and if you don't believe that you better puruse [sic] history a little deeper.

For example, the history of Canada?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/7/2022 10:00 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> Had Frank the power he would seize every single gun in this country in one second and he has effectively said so.

Absolute bullshit, of course. I've said quite the opposite, especially
regarding hunting, rural pest control, etc. I've also spoken approvingly
of Canada's gun policies, which obviously permit reasonable gun ownership.

Tom has always been a total failure disputing what I've actually said.
He hides that from himself by arguing against what he _wishes_ I've said.

I suppose many men do whatever it takes to make themselves feel manly,
to compensate for their weakness. Tom does a _lot_ of compensating.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

What is that supposed to mean? Perhaps you can point to a book that contradicts the Constitution and has any bearing whatsoever on what I've been saying. You are pretty confusing, since you don't seem to answer what I have been writing. Is this a book in which you seek knowledge or does it have to be bound and sold commercially?

[Tom Kunich]

And while we're at it, I would warrant that I've read more than 20 times more books than you have. I read out three public libraries, the military library and all of the books I used to gain the knowledge to become an engineer. Pardon me but no insult intended but what have you done? Most people with a college degree have never even gotten close to what I have read and exercised.

[Tom Kunich]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+canada+is+now+a+country+of+slaves&view=detail&mid=D20B7508360467D5FE0CD20B7508360467D5FE0C&FORM=VIRE

[John B.]

???? when did you stop being a bigot, just like the Prohibitionists
that convinced the U.S. to abolish alcoholic beverages?

(Bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
differing from his own)

As for "slurs"? Look in the mirror.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

No, quite the opposite.
You go on and on about these terrifying rapid fire weapons with big
magazines and I point out that "automatic" pistols that are "rapid
fire" and "have large magazines" have been openly sold in the U.S.
for, what was it? 30 years? 40 years? Without a single outcry from old
Frankie.

In fact Frank, based on my ~70 years of experience with guns and
gunners you know almost nothing about guns, or people that have them,
and when Andrew or I, or anyone else, attempt to educate you ignore it
as it certainly does not "fit in" with your preconceived notions. In
fact in most cases it demonstrates that your preconceived notions are
just that "notions" with no basis in reality.

No Frank, face reality. You Are a Bigot And even more deplorable, a
totally uninformed bigot screaming and hollering from a position of
ignorance.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Slurs are all you've got now, John.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 19:05:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski

<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 6/7/2022 6:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:14:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/7/2022 12:24 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ah but... you forget that people just like Frank convinced the Nation
>>>> to outlaw the alcoholic beverages.
>>>
>>> Wrong. Not people "just like Frank."
>>>
>>> John, just like Tom, you've got nothing left but slurs. You should be
>>> embarrassed.
>>
>> ???? when did you stop being a bigot, just like the Prohibitionists
>> that convinced the U.S. to abolish alcoholic beverages?
>>
>> (Bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
>> differing from his own)
>>
>> As for "slurs"? Look in the mirror.
>
>Slurs are all you've got now, John.

Well, Frankie, the question then becomes "what is a slur" and my
dictionary defines "slur" as "a disparaging remark" and yes, I
certainly do "disparage" you. Just as I do all those who lie, and you
certainly do lie about guns and gunners.

But I could be wrong, after all you have exhibited a rather startling
lack of knowledge about guns and those that have them so perhaps I am
making a mistake and you really aren't a confirmed and deliberate
liar. Perhaps you are simply an ignoramus.

Or another way to put it, "is a slur a slur when it is true?"
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I've thought rapid fire weaponry in untrained civilian hands was idiotic
for as long as I've known about it. A related incident:

Back in engineering school, we students did lots of socializing and
studying together between classes, at mealtimes, in evenings, on
weekends. Most of our group of 100 or so student acquaintances got to
know each other pretty well. At one point, the most obnoxious and
illogical of the crew announced in conversation that he always had his
pistol (a .45 semi-automatic) hidden under the seat of his car. There
was a lot of head shaking at that revelation. _Nobody_ else was so
fearful or timid as to do such a thing.

Well: At one weekend "meeting" (really, a beer and cards party) of our
student engineering society, the topic of carrying guns came up again.
Several people told that guy he was nuts and argued against him, but I
was the one who kept at it the longest. In the end, he and I were
sitting on chairs opposite each other and the rest of the students were
surrounding us, listening to our debate. In those days very few were on
his side, and he grew more and more agitated.

He eventually walked away. Then a guy named Mike, whom I knew only a
little, came up to me and asked "What are you doing this summer?" I'd
already been awarded a tuition-paid assistantship to grad school, so for
the first time I didn't have to scramble all summer to make money; but I
told Mike I guessed I'd get a summer job. Mike said "I just bought a VW
van. Want to travel the country with me?"

He invited me because he was impressed with what I'd been saying in that
debate. And yes, we spent that summer on the road - down to Georgia, up
the east coast to nearly Maine, across New York state, up Michigan into
Canada, down to Yellowstone, to California, to the Grand Canyon and
more. We saw countless sites, had some interesting adventures and met
quite a few lovely ladies. All because of a gun debate.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/7/2022 7:23 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 19:05:32 -0400, Frank Krygowski
> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> On 6/7/2022 6:07 PM, John B. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 12:14:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski
>>> <frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 6/7/2022 12:24 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah but... you forget that people just like Frank convinced the Nation
>>>>> to outlaw the alcoholic beverages.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong. Not people "just like Frank."
>>>>
>>>> John, just like Tom, you've got nothing left but slurs. You should be
>>>> embarrassed.
>>>
>>> ???? when did you stop being a bigot, just like the Prohibitionists
>>> that convinced the U.S. to abolish alcoholic beverages?
>>>
>>> (Bigot - a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions
>>> differing from his own)
>>>
>>> As for "slurs"? Look in the mirror.
>>
>> Slurs are all you've got now, John.
>
> Well, Frankie, the question then becomes "what is a slur" and my
> dictionary defines "slur" as "a disparaging remark" and yes, I
> certainly do "disparage" you. Just as I do all those who lie, and you
> certainly do lie about guns and gunners.

So many allegations! So few quotations of what I've actually said!

If I lied, post an accurate quote. Let's discuss.

You're exhibiting the anger of a person who knows he's been
intellectually beaten, but can't figure out what to do about it. Oh,
except sling insults.

Give it up, John.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Tue, 7 Jun 2022 19:28:38 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Frank, your statement above "I've thought rapid fire weaponry in

untrained civilian hands was idiotic for as long as I've known about
it.

Is, proof positive that (1) you are a liar, or (2) you are woefully
ignorant of guns and gunners."

The correct term for these weapons that fire once with each trigger
pull is "semi-automatic" and they have existed, in untrained civilian
hands, in the U.S., since 1903, so they certainly have existed, in the
U.S., in civilian hands, long before you were born. So your "as long
as I've known about it" rather demonstrates your vast lack of
knowledge of the subject rather vividly. Would you say, "little or
none"?

As for this training you talk about? What's that?
See Frankie, there is one single, overriding, rule about guns that you
have to learn, and that is "Don't point the fucking thing at anything
unless you want to kill it!" And I use term deliberately.
That's it. It is all you need to know. Anything else is frosting on
the cake.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

> hands, in the U.S., since 1903...

John, you complain about lies, but you haven't identified any. And
you're reduced to quibbling impotently about terminology.

Elementary logic should tell you that "rapid fire" and "semi-automatic"
are not mutually exclusive. Both are valid descriptions of many modern
guns.

And despite my repeated requests, you've still failed to give a
practical advantage of wide public use of those trendy rapid fire guns.
Certainly, you've given no advantage that trumps the disadvantage of
enabling rapid killing of schoolkids and other innocents.

Give it up.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tim R]

I heard radio commentary today I found interesting.

The UK banned all handguns after a mass shooting in 1996. That even included the British Olympic pistol team (the 2012 Olympics held in London did include pistol shooting, but the local team had to practice in France.)

The difference that struck me was that ending (or nearly ending) mass shootings in the UK makes a difference, because that's pretty much all the shootings they had. There have only been about 5 in their history, 4 before the ban and 1 after, but they didn't and don't have any level of other gun homicides. Contrast that to the US where mass shootings are a tiny percentage of gun homicides. Focusing on them doesn't affect the crime rate at all, but it seems most people are perfectly willing to live with the 14,000 annual gun homicides we average, as long as they aren't done with AR15s.

[Tom Kunich]

The UK has an entirely different set of problems. The US has massive racial and sociological differences that are heavily used by political parties to set one group against another for nothing more than political gain.

[John B.]

Are you sure? I've read that is West U.K, as it were, that shootings
and bombings were quite common (:-)

Re the dreaded AR15's (:-) According to the FBI's annual crime report
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-2019/topic-pages/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8.xls
hands and feet were used more frequently then the terrible AR.
During the 5 year period 2015-2019 there were 1,573 murders reported,
using a rifle, and during the same period some 3,346 murders were
reported as having been committed with "hands and feet".

And 7,721 committed with a knife (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

"... it seems most people are perfectly willing" is absolutely false. Citizens of cities that have high levels of gun crime are
outraged, no matter what style of guns are used. They're not focusing _only_ on AR-15s. They want all the shooting to stop.
In fact, I've never heard of a gun murder where the reaction was acceptance.

But the mass shootings are usually done with AR-style guns. Those shootings elicit the most horror (despite the absurd
allusions in this group that all deaths are equally bad) and those guns are the most blatantly unjustifiable. As a result,
some control of those guns seems like the most attainable goal.

Reasonable control of those guns is a goal that that has been achieved in almost all other developed nations. None of
those countries seems to have had any problems resulting from that control, despite the paranoia and horror worries
of U.S. gun fetishists.

- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Ah Frankie, so much noise, so little knowledge.

The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act or
Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was a subsection of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal
law which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use
of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault
weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as
large capacity.

This ban lasted from 1994 until 2004.
A number of studies were made of the effects of the law and the
results:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an
independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of
firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to
determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for
preventing violence."[42] A review of firearms research from 2001 by
the National Research Council "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun
violence outcomes." The committee noted that guns were relatively
rarely used criminally before the ban and that its maximum potential
effect on gun violence outcomes would likely be very small.[43]

In relation to a 2001 study the National Research Council in 2005,
stated "evaluation of the short-term effects of the 1994 federal
assault weapons ban did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence
outcomes."[44]

A book published by John Lott in 1998 found no impact of these bans on
violent crime rates.[45] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun
murders, while Lott's look at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated
assaults.[45] Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state
assault weapon bans and twelve other different types of gun control
laws.[45]

The Columbine High School massacre, in which two shooters murdered 13
people, occurred while the ban was in place. One of the shooters used
a semi-automatic pistol and high-capacity magazines that were
prospectively banned by the law.[46][47][48]

And Canada, that you so frequently mention:
Canada, from at least 1934 2019 varius laws regarding firearms were
enacted in Canada and AR type rifles are totally banned.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Canada#Prohibited_firearms
the results?

A comprehensive review of firearm control legislation found that
studies on the effects of the 1977 bill C-51 and bill C-68 from 1995
on firearm homicide rates came to differing conclusions, but generally
found that bill C-17 from 1991 was not associated with an overall
reduction of firearm homicide.[72] A 2011 study found no significant
associations between gun laws passed and firearm homicide rates in
Canada from 1974 to 2008.[73] A 2020 study examining laws passed from
1981-2016 found no significant changes in overall homicide or suicide
rates following changes in legislation. In addition, it also found
that firearm ownership by province was not correlated to overall
suicide rates by province.

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Isn't Copy & Paste wonderful? It allows lots of verbiage with no need
for critical thinking, no treatment of specific points being discussed
by one's debate opponent. It's a great tool for deflecting a discussion!

BUT:

Mass shootings _did_ drop during the period the assault rifle ban was in
effect, even though the ban did not cause a decrease in the number of
such guns that were available. The number of mass shootings began
skyrocketing as soon as the ban was rescinded. Those guns are still the
weapon of choice for, say, murdering groups of kids.

AND they have no really practical advantages to balance those
disadvantages. They are useful only for allowing some people to feel macho.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Tom Kunich]

On Monday, June 6, 2022 at 11:49:56 AM UTC-7, timoth...@gmail.com wrote:
> Frank,
> Google pareto principle.
>
> Every year in the US, on average, there are 14,000 gun homicides and 22,000 gun suicides.
>
> Of those, approximately .25% of the homicides and .1% of the suicides can be attributed to semiauto rifles.
>
> If we're serious about doing something worthwhile about gun violence, why would we start with the weapon that causes the least harm? It's not even the most common gun used in mass shootings. See here: https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
>
> There are 20 million of these rifles in circulation and they are hardly ever used in crime. I don't own one and don't shoot competitively, so loss of these doesn't affect me personally; I just object to the stupidity in both demonizing them and lauding their ban as the solution to our gun problem.
>
> And you don't own one, so you have no problem taking away everybody else's so you can feel (but not BE) safer, right? That's part of my irritation, the number of people who are quick to ban something they don't want themselves. There's no cost to that, no skin in the game.
I think that you have the idea that Frank is a breathing and thinking individual. He is not. He is part of the Communist Party despite having it explained to him that Communism IS socialism continues to deny it thereafter saying he is a socialist. So he is not representing HIS opinion but that of the party with has other considerations than if rifles are dangerous or not. He is nothing more than a herd animal who hates to the bottom of his heart that we have a Constitution protecting our right to keep and bear arms to EXPRESSLY protect ourselves from the government that Frank and his other party members would force upon this country.

Benjamin Franklin foresaw Frank and his fellow travelers in 1778 and said so. It should have been plain to every person in this country what was going on when the Democrats started filling every school and every government office with those more than willing to teach children that the Constitution is not unlimited. That those sacred words are only a general direction.

The only response to these things is to make that sort of thing criminal and to put these people away for the rest of their lives where they can think of the Freedoms they lost by trying to take those same freedoms away from others.

[AMuzi]

'No practical advantage' for you.

As with any complex situation, you don't know what you don't
know.

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

[Tom Kunich]

You have to read Franks normal ignorance to believe it. Even though the same number of guns were available just having such a law made the killings fall. And THIS man presents himself as an engineer and yet pretends that variability doesn't exist. He has no honor and he has no honesty and he cares nothing for the truth. We might say that he is Fauci's left hand man.

[Sir Ridesalot]

Yet another GUN thread in a BICYCLING Newsgroup. ROTFLMAO

I often think that if Frank could, he'd ban all guns except for muzzle loaders.

Seems to me that if Frank can't find a use for something whether bicycling related or not then he feels it's no good and a waste of time and/or money for EVERYONE else.

Cheers

[Tom Kunich]

Frank would ban muzzle loaders. He's almost as bad as Baden saying that Cannons weren't legal - the entire American Navy was originally composed of privateers ALL of which were equipped with cannons to protect them from pirates. It seems like no lie is too stupid for the Democrats to make.

[Frank Krygowski]

No, Sir, that's wrong, and I never hinted at that. (Too many people
prefer to argue against what they _wish_ I'd said, instead of what I've
actually said.)

Sir, you're in Canada. One thing I've said consistently is that Canada's
gun policies and laws are much better than those of the U.S.

So, does Canada ban all guns but muzzle loaders? No.
Are Canadian hunters unable to buy appropriate guns for hunting? No.
Does Canada allow anyone to easily purchase an AR-style rifle? No.
Are there any practical disadvantages to Canada's policies? No.
Does Canada have as many mass shootings as the U.S., either in total or
on a per-capita basis? No.

> Seems to me that if Frank can't find a use for something whether bicycling related or not then he feels it's no good and a waste of time and/or money for EVERYONE else.

<sigh> Again, you could possibly quote me on specifics instead of using
your imagination. But I do say there are bicycle technologies that are,
practically speaking, wasted for almost all people. For example, nobody
has ever posted a real practical advantage to a frame that deliberately
excludes tires wider than 23mm. Nobody's enumerated a practical
advantage for aero frame tubes for normal riders. I'm prepared to
discuss such things and do so using data, numbers, etc.

Similarly, nobody has ever posted a real practical advantage to a gun
that can shoot 30 rounds in a minute - except, that is, for situations
of armed combat or mass murder.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/11/2022 1:05 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>
>> AND [AR style rifles] have no really practical advantages to balance

>> those disadvantages. They are useful only for allowing some
>> people to feel macho.
>>
>>
>
> 'No practical advantage' for you.
>
> As with any complex situation, you don't know what you don't know.

For weeks, I've been asking for the practical advantages, beyond
firefight combats and mass murder. I think we had only one allusion to
it being nice not to reload as often during a target shoot. Nothing
else. That's hardly worth sacrificing roomfuls of kids, groups of
shoppers, dozens of people at prayer, bunches of concert fans...

If the advantages were real and practical, they'd have been posted long
ago.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Lou Holtman]

I don’t know anyone who owns a gun. Just another data point.

Lou

[Tom Kunich]

You don't know any Swiss men between the ages of 20 and 60?

[Tom Kunich]

My entire point being that Frank's kind was foreseen by Benjamin Franklin 225 years ago. Franklin was a highly intelligent man who well knew the moods of those far less well bequeathed.

A lady asked Dr. Franklin, ‘well, Doctor, what have we got a republic or a monarchy?’ ‘A republic,’ replied the Doctor, ‘if you can keep it.’

Now as far as the reliability of quotations goes, that’s pretty good. McHenry wrote it down very close to the event, and seems to have been within his hearing distance. And, of course, McHenry, being an actual delegate to the Constitutional Convention, would seem like a reliable source. So I think we can fairly say that Franklin said it.

Frank from a position of intense ignorance and not a trace of understanding of human nature would change the entire world because of his blind world view. That little POS sits there and lies to us about how only the USA has these problems when we are in the middle of the pack which shows that he has nothing better to do with his worthless life than to invent history that never occurred. He tells us the safest place on Earth is Canada as Treadeau has just turned it into a dictatorship. Where the Mounties are now nothing more than his SS. This is the real Frank.

[John B.]

I suppose that the over riding point is that "guns don't shoot people,
people shoot people". Which for all of Franks ranting and raving is a
truism.

As an example, my grandfather was born in 1883, so in 139 years, to my
personnel knowledge, no gun, in our family, ever jumped off the table
and ran out in the road and shot someone. If Frantic Frankie can post
an example of a gun doing that then he should do so.

So, the crux of the matter is that people really do shoot people, and
what can be done about it? Well Frankie really doesn't know what the
solution is so they, the gun grabbers, well, make up a solution. Yup!
Gun Laws Will Make You Free!

Really?

According to the gun grabbers something like 1/3 of the U.S.
population own guns and there are an estimated 120 guns for every 100
citizens. Or, in numbers, 100,429,751 people in the U.S. own guns and
there are an estimated 401,719,004 guns. And, of these guns it seems
that at least 20 million of them are AR type rifles.

So what will these gun laws accomplish? Will Frankie be rushing up and
down the street breaking into houses to search for guns? Or perhaps a
"buy back" scheme as was done in Australia? 40 million guns and, oh
say $500 per gun? $200,859,502,000? Will taxes go up?

Or will this be another failed "do gooder" scheme like the law banning
alcoholic beverages in the U.S. which was a failure but did result in
the greatest increase in U.S. crime ever seen.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well, tell us the real practical advantage to bicycle "gears". after
all, I, as a young fellow, rode all over with a single speed single
brake bicycle and if you've been in up state New England you know that
there is a lot of up and down there. So obviously not a necessity. As
I and all my "running mates" demonstrated.

So? A fad? For weaklings? Conspicuous Consumption? (Look! Look! I
gotta leven speed).

Oh Yes, I know you will come up with some excuses, but really? A
Necessity? The first guy to ride across the U.S. did it on a "penny
farthing" bike so all this fal-de-ral really can't be a necessity, can
it.

And, I might add, without all the levers and cables bike maintenance
is soooo much easier.

But if you really truly do want to buy $10,000 plastic bicycle then I
say Go Ahead. But if I want to buy a AR type rifle you shout No! No!,
No!

Oh, Yes, I might also note that the numbers murdered with all types of
"rifles, over the 5 years 2015 - 2019 was 1,573. During the same
period there were 4,135 bicycle deaths. Goodness! Gracious! Bicycles
are more then 2-1/2 times more likely to cause death then one of those
tremendously dangerious AR guns.

But then Frankie, you don't care about reality, do you. No, you are a
Bigot and what you care about is your own, opinion, even when it is
based on ignorance. "Especially when it is based on incurrence?"

--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

I've never called for banning $10,000 plastic bicycles. As I often say,
ride what you like; wear what you like, etc. Those choices harm nobody.

But when people buy rapid-fire weapons like AR rifles, others suffer
serious consequences. Aside from the direct effect of killing and
maiming people, there are economic detriments. As one example, cops are
forced to deal with higher firepower from perpetrators of crime. This
generates both an arms race and a body armor race between cops and
perps. That's paid for by taxpayers.

And for what? What _is_ the benefit of letting every gun fetishist buy
something that can be fitted with a 100 round magazine and empty it in a
minute?

You still fail to answer that question.

> Oh, Yes, I might also note that the numbers murdered with all types of
> "rifles, over the 5 years 2015 - 2019 was 1,573. During the same
> period there were 4,135 bicycle deaths. Goodness! Gracious! Bicycles
> are more then 2-1/2 times more likely to cause death then one of those
> tremendously dangerious AR guns.

<sigh> Advantages vs. disadvantages. SUCH a hard concept for you! :-)


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/11/2022 5:49 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> Frank ... tells us the safest place on Earth is Canada ...

Poor Tom! So intellectually outclassed that he has to invent straw man
arguments and imaginary statements just to try to stay in the game!

And still he fails.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/11/2022 5:02 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>
> I don’t know anyone who owns a gun. Just another data point.

It seems a lot of American men feel a need to boost their masculinity,
to feel tough and macho. I don't know why that is. The guys I hang
around with are confident enough without such crutches.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

On Sat, 11 Jun 2022 21:46:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski

Ah, the advantages. Yup. And they are?
Exercise? Can't be that as running or jogging provide a better (weight
bearing) exercise, both faster and cheaper?
Transportation? Well, yes, if it isn't raining that is. Or is isn't
too cold, or the wind isn't blowing.
And it seems that in the U.S. something like a quarter of all auto
"trips" are less then a mile so a bike maybe for short trips, those
long trips better take the car.

But back to my question. You want a $10,000 bike and nobody says a
thing. I want an AR and you leap to your feet, screaming, NO!NO!NO!
But why ever not? After all no one in my family has shot anyone in,
what was it 130 years? Why can't I have a gun?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Lou Holtman]

.

Op zaterdag 11 juni 2022 om 23:36:38 UTC+2 schreef Tom Kunich:

No and because of experiences in the past I’m not too fond of the Swiss.

Lou

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/11/2022 11:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> But back to my question. You want a $10,000 bike and nobody says a
> thing. I want an AR and you leap to your feet, screaming, NO!NO!NO!

Ah, John, your imagination must bring you much needed comfort! You get
to imagine your opponents as you would like them!

Two points:

1) I'm not leaping to my feet and screaming. I never behave that way.

2) If you say "I want an AR" I say "Why in hell would you want that?"

It's not stated with shouting. It's stated with a tone of disgust. And
I'll note again, you've never been able to cogently answer that question.

At your age, you should be beyond Rambo fantasies.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

The 'official' numbers do not include felons and career
criminals nor some significant number of lawful firearms
owners (who appear in no database whatsoever for their own
reasons).

We've had Federal background checks since 1968. It's run as
any other inefficient bureaucracy- overlooking the guilty[1]
while persecuting the innocent.

[1]it's a felony to lie on the 4473 form as Hunter Biden
did. I'm sure the ATF will get right on that.

[AMuzi]

Which as I mentioned comes down to an expression of values
and opinion. Out in the world, actual people prefer semi
rifles over bolt action or lever action by thousands to one
so crowdsourced opinion shows advantages even if not
everyone sees them.

[AMuzi]

On 6/11/2022 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 6/11/2022 5:02 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>

>> I don’t know anyone who owns a gun. Just another data

>> point.
>
> It seems a lot of American men feel a need to boost their
> masculinity, to feel tough and macho. I don't know why that
> is. The guys I hang around with are confident enough without
> such crutches.
>

Pretty broad brush there to describe 1/3 of USAians 'as a
group'.

[AMuzi]

We ought to make laws against felon in possession, stealing
firearms, carjacking, stopping in traffic to shoot at
people, driving stolen cars, fleeing police stops, violating
bond/probation terms, and maybe even violating the rules of
logic[1]

But no. Can't have those:
https://cwbchicago.com/2022/06/23-two-weeks-after-being-charged-with-having-a-stolen-rifle-in-a-hijacked-car-he-allegedly-shot-a-man-with-a-rifle-after-getting-out-of-a-hijacked-car.html

Peruse any overnight news on any given day to see many more
similar. We have many and serious problems but wishing away
firearms technology is just not a practical solution. We, as
a society, have dramatically ameliortaed these problems
before but now we find the problems more attractive, as a
society generally, than the solutions.

[1] report includes 'multi-caliber rifle'. Now there's a
technical breakthrough!

[Tom Kunich]

It should be said that in WW II, the English were armed with the Lee Enfield bolt action rifle. The results of this were they tended to shoot JUST as rapidly and Americans in numbers of rounds per minute because the Americans using the M1 would empty their magazines and have to take the time to insert a new full clip or after the initial engagements fill a magazine manually in order to insert it into the M1. And the Brits shot slightly slower with the bolt actions but usually aimed more accurately. Any bets I couldn't take Frank's head off at 800 yards with an Enfield on open sights? The point being that speed of shooting is not accuracy In the case of the Texas school shooter, he could have used a couple of revolvers with speed loaders and accomplished the same misery. He was shooting at dead blank range so Frank's idea of "Assault Weapons" were actually a handicap.

Again, the question arises - what was the immigration status of the Texas shooter? And where did he get some $10,000 in "legally obtained" weapons and ammunition? There seems to be an elephant in the room that Frank is unwilling to mention.

[Tom Kunich]

According to Frank, this poor misunderstood young man was forced by his gun to kill people. The almost total gun control in Chicago simply doesn't work because guns are so plentiful elsewhere that the 200 lives taken each weekend in Chicago proves the worth of gun control. What goes through the minds of people like Frank. EVEN if guns could be gotten, the gun control largely reduces the availability of guns. And what is the results of this? Criminals rule the streets and Frank in all his 1/4-20 wisdom cannot even admit that.

[Frank Krygowski]

Your logic is in error. We do have those laws. They are imperfectly
enforced, but that doesn't mean we should ditch the laws.

Plenty of laws are imperfectly enforced:
https://www.cleveland19.com/2021/04/11/joy-machines-bike-shop-asks-help-finding-stolen-bikes/

> Peruse any overnight news on any given day to see many more similar. We
> have many and serious problems but wishing away firearms technology is
> just not a practical solution.

Dissuading people from buying or using firearms intended for rapidly
killing people seems like a good step.

After all, as I've asked frequently, why not? Because some people find
them fun? That's also true of bombs.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 12:13 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> According to Frank, this poor misunderstood young man was forced by his gun to kill people.

No, Tom, I never said that.

Again, you're unable to make sense arguing against what I've actually
said, so you argue against what you wish I said.

It's intellectually weak and cowardly.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 11:04 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> Which as I mentioned comes down to an expression of values and opinion.
> Out in the world, actual people prefer semi rifles over bolt action or
> lever action by thousands to one so crowdsourced opinion shows
> advantages even if not everyone sees them.

"Crowdsourced opinions" show preferences, not advantages. Crowds decided
bell bottoms had advantages. Now they've decided skinny jeans have
advantages. Long hair vs. short hair vs. shaved heads. Flimsy sandals
vs. Ugg boots.

If there were real practical advantages to rapid fire combat style guns
(other than killing lots of people quickly) someone would have specified
them here long before now.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 11:56 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:
> In the case of the Texas school shooter, he could have used a couple of revolvers with speed loaders and accomplished the same misery. He was shooting at dead blank range so Frank's idea of "Assault Weapons" were actually a handicap.

Wow. Somehow, Tom, you're weak attempt at logic missed an absolutely
critical point:

He disagreed with you. He proved that with his actions.

Also, countries that ban or heavily restrict AR style guns don't have
equivalent numbers of mass shootings done with speed loaded revolvers.
If they did, I'm sure they'd restrict those as well.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 11:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>
> We've had Federal background checks since 1968. It's run as any other
> inefficient bureaucracy- overlooking the guilty[1] while persecuting the
> innocent.

You seem to have a low "persecution" threshold.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

In my personal opinion, being murdered is not a positive
outcome for a bureaucratic process:

https://patch.com/new-jersey/collingswood/south-jersey-murder-case-jumpstarts-debate-new-jersey-gun-laws-0

YMMV and probably does.

[Sir Ridesalot]

I used to have a really comprehensive collection of historical British firearms up to the FN L1A1. I also had a few USA firearms including an AR-15 and an M1 carbine made by Rockola. That M1 carbine was a real pleasure to shoot and I cold hit a moving soda can at 100 yards and bounce it back up the side of the gravel pit with repeated shots.

Then the Canadian government decided to do something about gun crime and arbitrarily banned all long-guns if they didn't have a certain barrel length excluding any flash suppresor. Thus overnight my Snider-Enfield carbine, my Lee-Enfield No.5 Jungle Carbine (bolt action) my Lee-Enfield N0.9 Target rifle, my Ar-15, my FN L1A1 and my M1 carbine all became illegal to own.

It seems to me that the Canadian government is doing a fair bit to disarm LAW ABIDING citizens but not much to discourage the criminal use of guns most of which are handguns not long guns.

It's stupid.

Cheers

[John B.]

Yes, I am getting on, as the saying goes. But is it Rambo fantasies?

After all I have mentioned shooting in state pistol matches, Air Base
level matches, Major Air Force Command matches and even the All Air
Force matches and the National pistol matches.

There must be a very large number of Rambos out there to support that
level of marksman shooting.

But more to the point, I did a review of School Shootings the other
day and I found that in the 27 School shootings in 2022 and 3 were
committed with AR type weapons and 16 were committed with pistols of
some sort. Oh yes, 1 was committed with a "Ghost Gun".

Which rather demonstrates the fact that all this screaming, hollering
and rushing about and dribbling down your pant leg about these
fantastically dangerious and fearsome AR type of rifle is, well, to
say the least, somewhat over done.

So tell you Frank, are you so lacking in knowledge that you actually
believe that people are running up and down the street shooting each
other with these fiendish weapons?

Or perhaps you have embraced the teachings of the good Dr. Goebbels
and Herr Hitler who espoused the theory that "the use of a lie so
colossal that no one would believe that someone could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously."

Or perhaps you are demented that, as Sir Francis Bacon stated nearly
400 years ago, "you only believes what you wants to be true"

To put it in Modern American, are you a fool, a liar, or simply crazy?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Tom Kunich]

The M1 Carbine was a really good rifle. When I got in the Air Force the TI decided that i irritated him and he was giving me grief from day one. Until the firing range and I could put everything in the center ring with continuous fire. Someone made some sort of joke about beginners luck so I flipped a quarter in the air and shot it in flight. I used to carry that around for luck. It caught most of the quarter. The TI never bothered me again.

[John B.]

On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:05:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 6/11/2022 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 6/11/2022 5:02 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>

>>> I don’t know anyone who owns a gun. Just another data

>>> point.
>>
>> It seems a lot of American men feel a need to boost their
>> masculinity, to feel tough and macho. I don't know why that
>> is. The guys I hang around with are confident enough without
>> such crutches.
>>
>
>Pretty broad brush there to describe 1/3 of USAians 'as a
>group'.

Stop and thing for a moment.

If, roughly, 1/3rd of the nation's population can be labeled, well
anything at all, think how lordly and manly that makes the accuser
feel.
Prancing about "with both hands on the wheel and his shoulders rared
back", as the song has it.

Not realizing all the time that "the shoe may be on the other foot" as
it were.
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well (:-) I once saw a three barrel gun, two 12 gauge barrels and one
rifled (forgot the caliber) barrel (:-)

But re laws, etc. I recently came across a news article about a guy
that murdered a 9 year old and raped a 10 year old. In 1975, I
believe. His lawyer had submitted a plea to the court to repeal the
execution sentence as, "he is so old now".

In Singapore, or at least when I lived there, the death sentence was
carried out almost immediately as in the case of a death sentence an
automatic appeal was made to the President of the country, who could,
pardon the criminal, order a new trial, or simply ignore the appeal.
In which case the criminal was hung about a week after sentencing.
Amount other things Singapore has the lowest use of illicit drugs in
the world.

Does rapid application of penalties have an effect on crime rates?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well, there you go. If we could only get rid of these horrible and
deadly guns, why life would be a "bowl of cherries" as the story goes.
Probably no criminal acts at all, we could disband the police and live
in a gun less utopia.

Right?

On the other hand, the U.S. has all those people in jail... more then
any other country in the world, I believe... all gun crimes?
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 5:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 4:14 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 6/12/2022 11:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>
>>> We've had Federal background checks since 1968. It's run
>>> as any other inefficient bureaucracy- overlooking the
>>> guilty[1] while persecuting the innocent.
>>
>> You seem to have a low "persecution" threshold.
>>
>
> In my personal opinion, being murdered is not a positive outcome for a
> bureaucratic process:
>
> https://patch.com/new-jersey/collingswood/south-jersey-murder-case-jumpstarts-debate-new-jersey-gun-laws-0

ISTR you using the term "persecution" regarding things like face masks,
bar closings, etc. Oh, and potential restrictions on buying
military-inspired rapid fire guns.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 8:39 PM, John B. wrote:
>
>
> Does rapid application of penalties have an effect on crime rates?

I've read that it does, but I couldn't give you a citation without a lot
of digging.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[John B.]

Well, actual fact is that in both casual murders (for want of a better
word) and school shootings the overwhelming gun of choice is a pistol.

In fact over a 5 year period documented by the FBI hands and feet were
the murder "weapon" in more then twice as many murders as rifles.

But, perhaps this data should be ignored. After all firearms are
extremely dangerious devices. Why, I've read that if one has guns in
the U.S. that one must keep them in some sort of locked "Safe" thing.
One supposes this is to prevent them from leaping out the door and
shooting someone. (:-)
--
Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 6:11 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> I used to have a really comprehensive collection of historical British firearms up to the FN L1A1. I also had a few USA firearms including an AR-15 and an M1 carbine made by Rockola. That M1 carbine was a real pleasure to shoot and I cold hit a moving soda can at 100 yards and bounce it back up the side of the gravel pit with repeated shots.

Um... sounds like fun, I guess. But it doesn't sound like a particularly
necessary activity. But isn't that gun terribly unfashionable now?

>
> Then the Canadian government decided to do something about gun crime and arbitrarily banned all long-guns if they didn't have a certain barrel length excluding any flash suppresor. Thus overnight my Snider-Enfield carbine, my Lee-Enfield No.5 Jungle Carbine (bolt action) my Lee-Enfield N0.9 Target rifle, my Ar-15, my FN L1A1 and my M1 carbine all became illegal to own.
>
> It seems to me that the Canadian government is doing a fair bit to disarm LAW ABIDING citizens but not much to discourage the criminal use of guns most of which are handguns not long guns.
>
> It's stupid.

Overall, it seems like Canadian gun policies are working. Your gun crime
rate is tiny compared to ours. That doesn't mean no improvements are
possible, of course. But you certainly don't want to copy the U.S.
policies.

This happened recently, well within my riding area. Watch until you can
hear the gunfire:
https://www.wfmj.com/story/46670185/eyewitness-describes-shooting-on-belmont-ave-e-liberty-st-in-liberty-twp


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 7:17 PM, John B. wrote:
> On 6/12/2022 7:17 PM, John B. wrote:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:55:44 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 11:18 PM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> But back to my question. You want a $10,000 bike and nobody says a
>>> thing. I want an AR and you leap to your feet, screaming, NO!NO!NO!
>>
>> Ah, John, your imagination must bring you much needed comfort! You get
>> to imagine your opponents as you would like them!
>>
>> Two points:
>>
>> 1) I'm not leaping to my feet and screaming. I never behave that way.
>>
>> 2) If you say "I want an AR" I say "Why in hell would you want that?"
>>
>> It's not stated with shouting. It's stated with a tone of disgust. And
>> I'll note again, you've never been able to cogently answer that question.
>>
>> At your age, you should be beyond Rambo fantasies.
>
> Yes, I am getting on, as the saying goes. But is it Rambo fantasies?

What else is it? Why would someone want a AR if not to feel tough? When
have you needed an AR?
Or more to the point, since I believe you've never owned one, how on
earth did you manage to survive?

> After all I have mentioned shooting in state pistol matches, Air Base
> level matches, Major Air Force Command matches and even the All Air
> Force matches and the National pistol matches.

And for those, you did not need an AR. Right?

> There must be a very large number of Rambos out there to support that
> level of marksman shooting.

Bubba Hogwaller buying yet another AR has nothing to do with your
marksmanship - which, BTW, I do respect.

> But more to the point, I did a review of School Shootings the other
> day and I found that in the 27 School shootings in 2022 and 3 were
> committed with AR type weapons and 16 were committed with pistols of
> some sort. Oh yes, 1 was committed with a "Ghost Gun".

Mass shootings are dominated by AR-style guns.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mass-shooters-favorite-gun-095210587.html
Can't we take steps to try to stop those?

> Which rather demonstrates the fact that all this screaming, hollering
> and rushing about and dribbling down your pant leg about these
> fantastically dangerious and fearsome AR type of rifle is, well, to
> say the least, somewhat over done.

Your imagination is running amok, John. I've done none of your childish
visualizations.
Like Tom, you lose in rational debate, so you turn to slurs. It's
considered childish in
a 12-year-old. It's really pathetic in a senior citizen.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 8:22 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2022 10:05:58 -0500, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>
>> On 6/11/2022 8:54 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2022 5:02 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
>>>>

>>>> I don’t know anyone who owns a gun. Just another data

>>>> point.
>>>
>>> It seems a lot of American men feel a need to boost their
>>> masculinity, to feel tough and macho. I don't know why that
>>> is. The guys I hang around with are confident enough without
>>> such crutches.
>>>
>>
>> Pretty broad brush there to describe 1/3 of USAians 'as a
>> group'.
>
> Stop and thing for a moment.
>
> If, roughly, 1/3rd of the nation's population can be labeled, well
> anything at all, think how lordly and manly that makes the accuser
> feel.

Stop and "thing" [sic] indeed. You and Andrew are both off track.

One third of the nation (a slight exaggeration) owns guns. As I have
made very, very clear multiple times, I'm not against owning all guns.
My comment did not apply to all gun owners.

But it is true, as I said, that a lot of American men feel a need to
bolster their masculinity. They don't buy hunting rifles or hunting
shotguns - that doesn't have the desired psychological effect. They buy
things like AR rifles. They also buy massive pickups that they trick out
for rolling coal, and use that on cyclists or on drivers of cars they
don't like. Some buy large motorcycles that they modify with super-loud
exhausts. Some buy Dodge Hellcats or other macho cars.

ISTM those are very likely examples of testosterone compensation.

- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 6/12/2022 9:28 PM, John B. wrote:
>
> Well, there you go. If we could only get rid of these horrible and
> deadly guns, why life would be a "bowl of cherries" as the story goes.
> Probably no criminal acts at all, we could disband the police and live
> in a gun less utopia.
>
> Right?

To borrow a phrase: John is wrong, of course. :-) More Tommy-like
each day!

But perhaps if we could restrict guns the way they are restricted in
Canada, Britain, Ireland, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal,
Denmark, Netherlands...

Perhaps if we did that, our gun crime rates might look more like theirs.
That is, immensely lower.

This just in:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/dead-23-injured-wave-weekend-mass-shootings-us/story?id=85341621

How many mass shootings happened this weekend in the countries I listed?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

Jail and prison populations are greatly reduced of late. To
our greater danger (not only regarding firearms):

https://nypost.com/2022/06/08/soft-justice-reforms-keep-alleged-nyc-serial-stabber-out-of-jail/