Trek/Bontrager Wavecell Technology Helmets

On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing out..

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China? Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry

You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA convention. By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.

On 8/9/2019 9:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China? Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry

You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA convention. By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.


We are indeed a violent society, no argument there.

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/pure-hat...ured-2-police/

So here's your career criminal, long and colorful conviction
record, a mass murderer by popular definition, out on bond
for several pending charges:

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/suspect-...-blasts-ab109/

But hey maybe he stole the Romanian passport so he could buy
more of those cute tattoos, just a misunderstood Jean
Valjean as it were.

Personally I would like to have seen an armed citizen put
one between his eyes, as he so richly deserved. YMMV
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/9/2019 9:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves. They no
longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China? Hmmm. I'll put my money on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people. US: 120 guns per 100 people. Let's attack China! They've got no guns! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry

You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants. Small arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA convention. By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food and water. Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.



This is on many ways still truly a wonderful country:

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/firefigh...souri-walmart/

Joy and happiness all around. Win-win

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

On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 8:33:47 PM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
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.

Vehicles have been used for mass murder.

https://fox8.com/2019/04/24/police-d...ring-8-people/
https://abcnews.go.com/US/pregnant-m...ry?id=63815455

This one is good - the voices made him do it. Sort of like Frank:
https://news.yahoo.com/warrant-drive...165348655.html

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 6:49:38 AM UTC-7, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, August 7, 2019 at 11:41:08 PM UTC-7, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 20:33:45 -0700 (PDT), jbeattie
wrote:

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.

I see. You are implying that if everyone actually complied with the
traffic code that "accidents" would remain the same as today?
--

Cheers,

John B.

I'm not implying anything. I am saying that a traffic ACCIDENT is an accident and in no way equivalent to an intentional mass shooting -- or intentional killing of any sort. Why even waste the bandwidth arguing about something so obvious?

Can one intentionally kill with a car? Sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle-ramming_attack That, however, is not the method of choice for the 251 mass-shooters this year. https://tinyurl.com/yxlb7j4r

-- Jay Beattie.

How many mass shootings added up to one 9/11?

On 8/9/2019 9:30 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:46 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:18:17 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 9:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 8/8/2019 6:38 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:

Try reading the 2nd amendment in a calm and impartial
manner. It
doesn't state that a gun owner must be a member of a
militia in order
to own a firearm.

That's rather simplistic, since it was well over 200 years
before a conservative majority supreme court narrowly came
to the Heller decision.


Oh fer chrissake.
Read any contemporary materials of the Founders.* The
militia are able bodied male citizens as a whole and yes
they damned well ought to be armed, practiced and organized.
** In the case of the Colonies, officers were elected and
despite most of their time being spent scratching a living
from the earth, in an emergency they proved well up to
myriad challenges.

I don't disagree. So what part of that do we have today? Are the
gun-totin'
able bodied male citizens practiced and organized? Do they elect
officers?
In an emergency - like, perhaps, a military invasion from Canada - would
they prove up to the myriad challenges? Is that _really_ what the immense
level of U.S. gun ownership is all about?

I think it's really about what Jim Jeffries said: “'**** off. I like
guns.'
It’s not the best argument, but it’s all you’ve got.�

- Frank Krygowski


Hunting and sport are irrelevant red herrings.

An odd statement. I think the hunters and sport shooters might disagree.

An armed populace is the
best prevention of both invasion and tyranny. Note the desperation in
Hong Kong:

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/...ong-kong-raids


The Czechs stopped Soviet tanks by jamming water pipe into the treads
for a short while. Until a real tank division arrived. That didn't end
well.

Better free Swiss than enslaved Tibetans.

Are you seriously fearing the aggressive Canadians will invade
Wisconsin?? Do you think the Central American immigrants will suddenly
organize into an army? And even if those fantasies came true, would
unpracticed gun fetishers really be effective against actual soldiers? I
think not.

America has a tremendous advantage over Hong Cong, the Czech Repubic and
Tibet. We have the worlds biggest moats around our "castle" - the
Atlantic and Pacific. We have only friendly contiguous nations. And if
Canada really did invade, the National Guard - an _actual_ well
regulated militia - would be infinitely more help than the herds of
armed gang bangers. Those guys would use the opportunity to loot stores
and homes instead of to march into battle.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/9/2019 1:39 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 21:13:38 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:58:32 PM UTC-4, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 22:33:15 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/8/2019 6:53 PM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 11:48:42 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

On 8/8/2019 2:17 AM, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 22:22:54 -0400, Frank Krygowski wrote:

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


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?

It is hard to say as I can't find any statistics.

That _should_ make you realize that the problem is relatively tiny! IOW,
bomb control works pretty well.

But I did find a
Times report dated August 2016 that stated that the bombings had
"ground on for more than a decade and killed more than 5,000 people".
https://time.com/4449653/thailand-bombing-what-to-know/

So maybe 500 per year? Less than one bomb fatality per 100,000
population during an insurgency, i.e. a low-level attempt at war.

The U.S. more than triples that rate using guns, with no need for any
insurgency.


Well sort of. You are ignoring the fact that the greatest number of
bombs are exploded in the southern most provinces of Pattani, Yala and
Narathwat with a combined population of 2,006,330. Or about the same
as the U.S. state of Nebraska. Now if 500 a year had been killed by
bombs in Nebraska for the past 10 years do you think there might be an
outcry?

Yes, "if." However, that's not what we're actually dealing with.

Like it or not, your present country's gun laws correlate with much
lower gun deaths than the U.S., and bombs do not make up the difference,
as you tried to imply.

Frank, the intentional murder rate in Thailand is 3.24/100,000 while
in the U.S. it is 5.3/100,000.

Which I'm sure that you will assume that is solely because of the
lenient gun laws in the U.S.

Yet other countries with high gun ownership have noticeably different
murder rates. The U.S. has an estimated private gun ownership of
120/100 people. Yemen has an estimated private gun ownership of a bit
less than half the U.S. some 52.8/100. According what you appear to
say it seems logical that Yemen with it's much lower gun ownership
must have a lower murder rate.

Unfortunately your thesis doesn't seem to hold water as Yemen with
only 44% of the gun ownership of the U.S. has an intentional homicide
rate of 6.66/100,000 or 125% that of the U.S.

How can that be? Less than half of the guns and more murders?

sigh For your education:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/multivariate

How about comparing the U.S. to countries and economies that are at least
vaguely similar? In other words, remove a few dozen variables. What do you
get for relative murder rates?

And by the way: Since you argue so strenuously in favor of guns, how are you
doing living in a country where they are so restricted? Is it hell on earth
for you? How do you get by?

- Frank Krygowski

Ah but Frank, I'm not arguing strenuously in favor of guns. I'm merely
trying, admittedly against fierce resistance, to get you to face
reality.

So tell us about your reality. How are you getting by in a country with
strict gun laws? Is it as terrible as our NRA claims it must be?

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/8/2019 11:36 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 8/8/2019 10:17 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
My point was a little finer -- why concentrate on those
deliberately
killed 20 at a time, when those killed in ones or twos are really a much
bigger problem?

You're complaining about elementary human nature. One murder is
regrettable and raises outrage. 20+ murders at once naturally incites
much more outrage. The situation is closely paralleled whenever
there's a traffic crash that kills many, a landslide that kills many,
etc.

I don't think that's all it is -- the press amplifies mass shootings in
particular to a remarkable degree.

The press amplifies anything that triggers horror in its readers or
potential readers. They do it because human nature responds to this, and
it ultimately makes more money for them. If the tendency to such horror
wasn't built into humans, it wouldn't work and they'd use other tactics.

For a full treatment on this, try reading _Risk_ by Dan Gardner. It's a
major theme of the book.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/9/2019 10:42 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/9/2019 9:32 AM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, August 9, 2019 at 6:24:47 AM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/8/2019 10:40 PM, news18 wrote:
On Thu, 08 Aug 2019 12:44:32 -0700, Tom Kunich wrote:


The Swiss Army receives LESS training than the US Army reserves.
They no
longer receive any training after that. If you consider that a "well
regulated militia" you are the sort of person I have been pointing
out.

Obviously the US training is wasteful. Look how many times Switzerland
has been invaded.


As Clausewitz noted, Switzerland is fully armed and hence
ungarrisonable. Nice feature for a sovereign nation:

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would
be a rifle behind every blade of grass."Â* Admiral Yamamoto

Contrast to the Warsaw ghetto 1943 or the Warsaw uprising
1944. Or Tibet 1959. I could go on.

You think the outcome would have been different if any of those groups
were armed to the teeth? Tibet versus China?Â* Hmmm.Â* I'll put my money
on the country with the largest standing army in the world.

China: 3.6 guns per 100 people.Â* US: 120 guns per 100 people.Â* Let's
attack China! They've got no guns!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...a_by_co untry


You imagine a rather quaint version of modern warfare. One drone could
take out an entire block full of US meatheads with AR-15 variants.
Small arms fire might be enough to bring down an Apache (after it has
basically decimated the neighborhood with a chain gun), but its not
effective against a Reaper. A Tomahawk could take out an entire NRA
convention. By the time it came to building-to-building fighting, we
would be in a post-apocalyptic world and shooting each other for food
and water.Â* Meanwhile, in the rear world, we have a stupid amount of
guns as a culture and are managing to shoot each other with great
regularity.

-- Jay Beattie.


We are indeed a violent society, no argument there.

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/pure-hat...ured-2-police/


So here's your career criminal, long and colorful conviction record, a
mass murderer by popular definition, out on bond for several pending
charges:

https://ktla.com/2019/08/08/suspect-...-blasts-ab109/


But hey maybe he stole the Romanian passport so he could buy more of
those cute tattoos, just a misunderstood Jean Valjean as it were.

Personally I would like to have seen an armed citizen put one between
his eyes, as he so richly deserved. YMMV

You mean there was no "good guy with a gun" around at the right time?
Gosh, my faith in LaPierre is shaken.

Or wait - are good guys with guns supposed to be totally ineffective if
the bad guy _doesn't_ have a gun? It's so confusing!

--
- Frank Krygowski

On 8/9/2019 11:33 AM, Tom Kunich wrote:


How many mass shootings added up to one 9/11?


Funny you should ask:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...te/1924683001/


--
- Frank Krygowski