Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:57:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

I see very few reports of mass killings using
knives.

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

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

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

Machetes were prominent during the Rwandan genocide
much more recently.


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

But hey nothing to see here, move along.

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

If merely writing laws could change behavior...

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

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

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

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

Perhaps in the U.S. where apparently the citizens are too complacent
to make their own bombs but here, in a less well developed country, we
just has a rash of some 6 bombs that exploded (and 1 "dud") in Bangkok
in the past few days. All "home made" bombs. In the South home made
bombs are so common that they have recently banned metal LPG tanks (a
common container used in home bomb making).

--

Cheers,

John B.

On 8/7/2019 9:57 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 14:57:33 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

I see very few reports of mass killings using
knives.

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

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

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

Machetes were prominent during the Rwandan genocide
much more recently.


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

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


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


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


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

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

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

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

But hey nothing to see here, move along.

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

If merely writing laws could change behavior...

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

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

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

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

Perhaps in the U.S. where apparently the citizens are too complacent
to make their own bombs but here, in a less well developed country, we
just has a rash of some 6 bombs that exploded (and 1 "dud") in Bangkok
in the past few days. All "home made" bombs. In the South home made
bombs are so common that they have recently banned metal LPG tanks (a
common container used in home bomb making).

As you know, I'm interested in data. How many bomb deaths per year?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/7/2019 9:45 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:41:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 2:31 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
... how else do you measure any sort
of speed of fireing in order to make a rule?

Hmm. Wow, that IS difficult. Because there's no possible way any
government official could take a sample firearm to a shooting range,
fill it and/or its magazine with its maximum round capacity, start a
stopwatch and see how many rounds could be fired in a minute. That would
be so darned complex!

Ah, O.K. So it is what is usually called "effective rate of fire" or
the number of rounds that can be fired in a specific length of time.

You've got it. See, it wasn't so hard.

But I used to shoot with a State Police Sergeant who used to shoot the
Practical Police Course (PPC) now called something different and he
could, with a S&W 6 shot revolver, fire 5 rounds, reload and fire 5
more in 10 seconds or less. The 5 rounds was simply because 10 rounds
was one target's worth.

If you extend that a little and disregard the need for aimed shots one
could probably easily fire 12 rounds in 10 seconds, or less, or about
72 rounds in one minute.

So is a firearm that can be fired 72 rounds a minute all right?

Since you're asking my opinion, I'd say no, it's not all right. Perhaps
in the hands of a law enforcement officer or an enlisted man. But I'd
say hunters or those who fancy themselves home defenders have no need
for that. Why _would_ you realistically need that?

And before you answer with a 99th percentile example, please let me know
if you've used that capability since you've lived where you do.

The point that I am trying to make is your simple take the gun to the
range and shoot it is over simplistic and hardly a reasonable
assessment of firepower.

It would be an assessment of practical speed of shooting. Limiting that
speed to say, five or ten rounds in a minute would be no inconvenience
to any hunter or target shooter. In my view, the most likely reasons
firing more rounds in one minutes would be a) to kill people in a crowd,
or b) to pretend to kill people in a crowd. We don't need either of those.

But Frank that is a record, fired with a standard S&W revolver. Are we
to ban all revolvers?

My idea would be: You can keep your revolver if it's fitted with a speed
limiting device.

Actually I have few complaints of much more stringent gun laws that
any that you have stipulated so far. I am merely trying to point out
to a very opinionated and generally ignorant of the subject individual
that over simplistic laws are not very effective.

But from your posts, I wonder if there are _any_ gun laws you would not
consider "ludicrase" [sic].

I asked about the gun laws where you now live. You seemed give data
indicating they work. Is it hell on earth living under those laws?
Should we adopt them in the U.S.? Or are there others that you would
propose?

Well, to apply Thai Gun laws to the U.S. would require the removal of
the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, probably a largely impossible
action.

Alternately, it could require a U.S Supreme Court that interpreted it
honestly. The recent applicable decisions blatantly pretended the first
half of the relevant passage, and overturned quite a long history of its
interpretation. It was a mistake, or a deliberate misdeed.


But, to repeat my previous arguments, why do you worry so much about
22 people getting shot, occasionally, when you complacently accept
~100 daily deaths on the roads?

My "accepting" any deaths on the roads is your favorite straw man, John.
It's not even an effective straw man argument. It's a lie. Drop it.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 8:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:28:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Your portrayal of me accepting bombs is far less accurate and WAY less
witty than Jim Jeffries bit on gun nuts.

But in an effort to seek agreement, here's what I propose: Let's make
U.S. gun laws exactly as strict as U.S. bomb laws. Will that satisfy you?


You mean that fertilizer and diesel fuel have strict laws to control
them in the U.S. ? Amazing! I had not known that..

You're really not very knowledgeable on these issues, John.

"Under federal explosives law, it is illegal to engage in the business
of manufacturing explosives without a license; to improperly store
explosives; to sell or distribute explosives to any person who does not
hold an ATF license or permit." You may want to read this information:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct, but the manufacture of an
explosive from fertilizer and diesel fuel can be very much a home
project. It is also, I discovered when working at a major copper mine
in Irian Jaya a commonly used explosive in open pit mining and is
mixed "on the spot" by the explosive guys. And, I might add,
instructions for making fertilizer/diesel fuel bombs is all over the
Internet. It is not, as they say, rocket science.


Sure, you can make up any snide little saying that you wish. But do
you really feel that it is more horrifying to shoot 22 people than to
kill outright 160 people and injure another 600?

No, and I didn't say that. Again, when someone sinks exclusively into
straw man arguments, they must have no really logical argument remaining.

But it isn't a straw man argument. You bemoan the so called "mass
shootings" and argue for stringent gun laws while at the same time
accepting the facts that about 100 die daily on the Nation's roads.

But than, I guess the road deaths are all accidents, just
happenstance, one might say.
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:11:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 8:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:25:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

I see very few reports of mass killings using knives.

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

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

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

Machetes were prominent during the Rwandan genocide much more recently.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try, but I have been pointing out all along that you react with
horror to anyone being shot but at the same time totally ignore much
greater losses of life if no gun is used.

And that is perfectly false. You get no points. Thanks for trying.


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

Someone shoots 22 people in Texas and Oh! My! God! but 4 times that
killed daily on the highways isn't anything to get excited about.

Of course as Stalin said, "a single death is a tragedy; a million
deaths is a statistic"
--

Cheers,

John B.

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 7:43:50 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 8:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:28:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Your portrayal of me accepting bombs is far less accurate and WAY less
witty than Jim Jeffries bit on gun nuts.

But in an effort to seek agreement, here's what I propose: Let's make
U.S. gun laws exactly as strict as U.S. bomb laws. Will that satisfy you?


You mean that fertilizer and diesel fuel have strict laws to control
them in the U.S. ? Amazing! I had not known that..

You're really not very knowledgeable on these issues, John.

"Under federal explosives law, it is illegal to engage in the business
of manufacturing explosives without a license; to improperly store
explosives; to sell or distribute explosives to any person who does not
hold an ATF license or permit." You may want to read this information:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct, but the manufacture of an
explosive from fertilizer and diesel fuel can be very much a home
project. It is also, I discovered when working at a major copper mine
in Irian Jaya a commonly used explosive in open pit mining and is
mixed "on the spot" by the explosive guys. And, I might add,
instructions for making fertilizer/diesel fuel bombs is all over the
Internet. It is not, as they say, rocket science.


Sure, you can make up any snide little saying that you wish. But do
you really feel that it is more horrifying to shoot 22 people than to
kill outright 160 people and injure another 600?

No, and I didn't say that. Again, when someone sinks exclusively into
straw man arguments, they must have no really logical argument remaining.

But it isn't a straw man argument. You bemoan the so called "mass
shootings" and argue for stringent gun laws while at the same time
accepting the facts that about 100 die daily on the Nation's roads.

But than, I guess the road deaths are all accidents, just
happenstance, one might say.

There is no equivalency between mass shootings and traffic accidents. Traffic accidents are an unfortunate consequence of an activity with high utility. Mass shootings are simply murder. You know that. Everybody knows that.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/7/2019 10:43 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:20:16 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 8:54 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:28:24 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


Your portrayal of me accepting bombs is far less accurate and WAY less
witty than Jim Jeffries bit on gun nuts.

But in an effort to seek agreement, here's what I propose: Let's make
U.S. gun laws exactly as strict as U.S. bomb laws. Will that satisfy you?


You mean that fertilizer and diesel fuel have strict laws to control
them in the U.S. ? Amazing! I had not known that..

You're really not very knowledgeable on these issues, John.

"Under federal explosives law, it is illegal to engage in the business
of manufacturing explosives without a license; to improperly store
explosives; to sell or distribute explosives to any person who does not
hold an ATF license or permit." You may want to read this information:
https://www.atf.gov/explosives

Yes, I'm sure that you are correct, but the manufacture of an
explosive from fertilizer and diesel fuel can be very much a home
project. It is also, I discovered when working at a major copper mine
in Irian Jaya a commonly used explosive in open pit mining and is
mixed "on the spot" by the explosive guys. And, I might add,
instructions for making fertilizer/diesel fuel bombs is all over the
Internet. It is not, as they say, rocket science.

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

Sure, you can make up any snide little saying that you wish. But do
you really feel that it is more horrifying to shoot 22 people than to
kill outright 160 people and injure another 600?

No, and I didn't say that. Again, when someone sinks exclusively into
straw man arguments, they must have no really logical argument remaining.

But it isn't a straw man argument. You bemoan the so called "mass
shootings" and argue for stringent gun laws while at the same time
accepting the facts that about 100 die daily on the Nation's roads.

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


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/7/2019 10:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 21:11:31 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 8:44 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 10:25:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Ah. 3.24 vs. 5.30.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

I see very few reports of mass killings using knives.

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

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

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

Machetes were prominent during the Rwandan genocide much more recently.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geez, nobody will answer a question any more!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice try, but I have been pointing out all along that you react with
horror to anyone being shot but at the same time totally ignore much
greater losses of life if no gun is used.

And that is perfectly false. You get no points. Thanks for trying.


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

sarcasm on And I can't find a single post in which you bemoaned the
torture of cute little bunnies. John, why are you in favor of torturing
cute little bunnies? sarcasm off

You seem to be completely out of intellectual honesty. And/or you're
trolling.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 9:45:18 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:41:48 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 8/7/2019 2:31 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Tue, 6 Aug 2019 23:16:41 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:


As I've said befo I shoot on occasion. I'm not bad at it, and it's
kind of fun. But I see no need for a civilian to own a gun that can fire
off more than a few rounds in one minute. (John got very confused on
this, measuring rate of fire over a time period of two seconds or
something - which was clearly not what I had said.)

Actually I spent several posts trying to educate you that rounds per
time period is not a valid measurement, for any practical purpose,
that is. For example: Jerry Miculek sat a record in 1999 of 8 rounds
fired from a revolver in 1 second, which translate to a firing rate of
480 rounds per minute. An AK-47 (an assualt rifle) has a firing rate
of ~600 RPM.

And no it wasn't what you said, but how else do you measure any sort
of speed of fireing in order to make a rule?

Hmm. Wow, that IS difficult. Because there's no possible way any
government official could take a sample firearm to a shooting range,
fill it and/or its magazine with its maximum round capacity, start a
stopwatch and see how many rounds could be fired in a minute. That would
be so darned complex!

Ah, O.K. So it is what is usually called "effective rate of fire" or
the number of rounds that can be fired in a specific length of time.

But I used to shoot with a State Police Sergeant who used to shoot the
Practical Police Course (PPC) now called something different and he
could, with a S&W 6 shot revolver, fire 5 rounds, reload and fire 5
more in 10 seconds or less. The 5 rounds was simply because 10 rounds
was one target's worth.

If you extend that a little and disregard the need for aimed shots one
could probably easily fire 12 rounds in 10 seconds, or less, or about
72 rounds in one minute.

So is a firearm that can be fired 72 rounds a minute all right?

The point that I am trying to make is your simple take the gun to the
range and shoot it is over simplistic and hardly a reasonable
assessment of firepower.

I see no justification for a gun that can fire a dozen rounds in five

How about 8 rounds in one second? Out of a commerically made S&W
revolver?

Sheesh, an elementary mathematical logic fail! Obviously, John, I see no
justification for that.

But Frank that is a record, fired with a standard S&W revolver. Are we
to ban all revolvers?

Frank, any semi-automatic weapon can be modified to fire fully
automatic until the magazine is empty. and it isn't rocket science.

I know that. I see no justification for doing it or permitting it. What
nut case wants to play with fully automatic guns? Why didn't they grow
out of that before they were 18?

Using the 1911 Colt as an example, you don't have to actually file the
interrupter, it will wear away in use :-)

In short, while I do hear what you say, gun laws made based on your
posts would be ludicrase.

I understand you don't like it. But I think a literal "rounds in one
minute" limit is easy to understand, easy to justify and not technically
hard to conform to.

Actually I have few complaints of much more stringent gun laws that
any that you have stipulated so far. I am merely trying to point out
to a very opinionated and generally ignorant of the subject individual
that over simplistic laws are not very effective.

But from your posts, I wonder if there are _any_ gun laws you would not
consider "ludicrase" [sic].

I asked about the gun laws where you now live. You seemed give data
indicating they work. Is it hell on earth living under those laws?
Should we adopt them in the U.S.? Or are there others that you would
propose?

Well, to apply Thai Gun laws to the U.S. would require the removal of
the 2nd amendment to the Constitution, probably a largely impossible
action.

But, to repeat my previous arguments, why do you worry so much about
22 people getting shot, occasionally, when you complacently accept
~100 daily deaths on the roads?

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

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

--

Cheers,

John B.

You sound like Frank does when he bemoans the number of automobile and pedestrian deaths whenever anyone talks here about bicycling deaths. VBEG LOL ;)

Cheers

On Wed, 07 Aug 2019 22:26:43 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:22 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/7/2019 7:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/7/2019 5:53 PM, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 11:57:36 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 8/7/2019 1:20 PM, AMuzi wrote:

But what do you care? Get rid of guns and that will FIX EVERYTHING.

Forgive me Frank but you're less than an old fool. You are one that
doesn't have the capacity to think and probably never could.


I read the above, Tom. This is yet another time I'm resisting
correcting your countless mistakes - or perhaps, in this case, your
straw man arguments and blatant lies.

But regarding Switzerland: What the Swiss have is an actual "well
regulated militia." Very few U.S. gun owners fit that description.
Aside from legitimate hunters (whom I support),
the U.S. has instead a bunch of fatties with Rambo fantasies, and/or
thugs who have nothing much to live for.

Yep we're a 'basket of deplorables'.

OK, I was overly harsh. I apologize. I'm generalizing too much from the
gun nuts I know and have known.

But it is an accurate generalisation. They are so boringly predictable n
their rant.